The Alamo

[atomheartbevo 89674]

18 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

The title is pretty inflammatory (by design I’m sure) but from the interview they did on Texas Standard it sounds like a pretty honest take. While I have no doubt a big reason for Texas declaring independence when it did was Mexico making slavery illegal, I just don’t see a bunch of English speaking people would continuing as Mexican citizens, especially given the corruption and instability (and distance) of the Mexican government 

It happened a lot throughout the Americas though - colonists who came in to another culture and adapted.  Look at the mixed bag of Canada being both French and English colonies at differing times, parts of US originally being Spanish, French, Russian, etc. not to mention the Caribbean.  I could easily see a bunch of English-speaking people living as Mexican citizens - it's not like your typical colonist was going to be forced at gunpoint to speak Spanish.  The people who would directly administer them would either be bilingual or have staffers who were.

Long term, Mexico was just not going to allow colonists to hang out in Texas and bring in a shitload of slaves.  Article 13 was the writing on the wall - Austin's colonists were not going to give up their slaves, and they saw what was coming.  Austin himself was pissed that Article 13 freed the children of slaves at birth, among other things.

[JohnnyRage 1617]

And then something something started trying to collect taxes again.

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

8 hours ago, Wally Fairway said:

Took my kids to the Alamo, must be about 15 years ago - and what they really remember is the shaved ice from the cart in the plaza. Of course it was 102°, and they were like 5,8 & 11 years old.

What would really have changed the outcome of the Alamo was if they could have floated the battleship Texas right up the Riverwalk, took the kids to see that too, and the San Jac monument. It was a mini-tour of Tejas history. Though they liked the boardwalk at Kemah better than anything around the ship channel.

 

If the Texas had been at the Alamo I think Travis and Bowie would have won...

 

 

4 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

It happened a lot throughout the Americas though - colonists who came in to another culture and adapted.  Look at the mixed bag of Canada being both French and English colonies at differing times, parts of US originally being Spanish, French, Russian, etc. not to mention the Caribbean.  I could easily see a bunch of English-speaking people living as Mexican citizens - it's not like your typical colonist was going to be forced at gunpoint to speak Spanish.  The people who would directly administer them would either be bilingual or have staffers who were.

Long term, Mexico was just not going to allow colonists to hang out in Texas and bring in a shitload of slaves.  Article 13 was the writing on the wall - Austin's colonists were not going to give up their slaves, and they saw what was coming.  Austin himself was pissed that Article 13 freed the children of slaves at birth, among other things.

Pennsylvania has had German-speakers for three centuries now. Texas might still too if it weren't for events overseas. (Well, there still are some, but they are dying out. But if the Kaiser and Hitler hadn't acted out the effort to stamp out German would not have been intense as it was.)

And there are the Cajuns too; Navajo, Hawaiians, Inuit, and so on.  

Edited June 23, 2021 by MaybeACoordinator

[Armybrat 40849]

9 hours ago, Wally Fairway said:

Took my kids to the Alamo, must be about 15 years ago - and what they really remember is the shaved ice from the cart in the plaza. Of course it was 102°, and they were like 5,8 & 11 years old.

What would really have changed the outcome of the Alamo was if they could have floated the battleship Texas right up the Riverwalk, took the kids to see that too, and the San Jac monument. It was a mini-tour of Tejas history. Though they liked the boardwalk at Kemah better than anything around the ship channel.

 

Edited June 23, 2021 by Armybrat

[Wally Fairway 5550]

2 hours ago, Armybrat said:

 

Wow, not even upside-down, but this isn't the hot or not thread

[Armybrat 40849]

Thought you might like to see some old birds.

[JohnnyRage 1617]

Krys Boyd is a Texas gem. The author of the book will be on her NPR show ‘Think’ today at noon.

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

23 minutes ago, JohnnyRage said:

Krys Boyd is a Texas gem. The author of the book will be on her NPR show ‘Think’ today at noon.

Still needs to quit biting on pump-fakes though. 

[MissingInAction 25078]

22 hours ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

 

If the Texas had been at the Alamo I think Travis and Bowie would have won...

 

 

Pennsylvania has had German-speakers for three centuries now. Texas might still too if it weren't for events overseas. (Well, there still are some, but they are dying out. But if the Kaiser and Hitler hadn't acted out the effort to stamp out German would not have been intense as it was.)

And there are the Cajuns too; Navajo, Hawaiians, Inuit, and so on.  

Great grandmother who baby sat me all the time spoke German almost exclusively.

  My mom still bitches about my first words being in German. Sad thing is I can't form a sentence out of the language now.

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

13 minutes ago, MissingInAction said:

Great grandmother who baby sat me all the time spoke German almost exclusively.

  My mom still bitches about my first words being in German. Sad thing is I can't form a sentence out of the language now.

There are about 10,000 left who learned it as children and they are dying off as fast as WWII vets. It's sad.

[Gatorubet 30239]

My son has recently caught Texas History bug so we are going to tour the Alamo for Spring Break. We’ve watched the 1950’s Disney Davey Crockett movie on Disney+ 3x this week.

I hope you told him that it was not really “history”.

[CooterBrown 18013]

Pennsylvania has had German-speakers for three centuries now. Texas might still too if it weren't for events overseas. (Well, there still are some, but they are dying out. But if the Kaiser and Hitler hadn't acted out the effort to stamp out German would not have been intense as it was.)
And there are the Cajuns too; Navajo, Hawaiians, Inuit, and so on.  

Mexico has a large amount of Germans in Monterrey. My Mexican ancestors were German. Fish tacos were created in Baja by Japanese Mexicans using tempura recipes. There’s a Chinese community in Tampico. A former employee was a 3rd generation Chinese Mexican. Heck, a dorm neighbor was from Kenya but was Indian. People migrate everywhere.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11819]

14 minutes ago, CooterBrown said:

Mexico has a large amount of Germans in Monterrey. My Mexican ancestors were German. Fish tacos were created in Baja by Japanese Mexicans using tempura recipes. There’s a Chinese community in Tampico. A former employee was a 3rd generation Chinese Mexican. Heck, a dorm neighbor was from Kenya but was Indian. People migrate everywhere.

There were a lot of Irish in Mexico in the 1800s as well.  And Mormons.

[bolverk 29679]

3 hours ago, CooterBrown said:

Mexico has a large amount of Germans in Monterrey. My Mexican ancestors were German. Fish tacos were created in Baja by Japanese Mexicans using tempura recipes. There’s a Chinese community in Tampico. A former employee was a 3rd generation Chinese Mexican. Heck, a dorm neighbor was from Kenya but was Indian. People migrate everywhere.

Mexicali is ground zero for the Chinese community in Mexico from what I've heard.

2 hours ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

There were a lot of Irish in Mexico in the 1800s as well.  And Mormons.

And Mennonites.

[F250 28777]

4 hours ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

There were a lot of Irish in Mexico in the 1800s as well.

 

 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

1 hour ago, bolverk said:

Mexicali is ground zero for the Chinese community in Mexico from what I've heard.

And Mennonites.

I've been drunk many a night.

[Helobious 9454]

4 hours ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

There were a lot of Irish in Mexico in the 1800s as well.  And Mormons.

The San Patricios are legends in Mexico for how they fought in the Mexican-American War. 

[F250 28777]

1 hour ago, Helobious said:

The San Patricios are legends in Mexico for how they fought in the Mexican-American War. 

It's a great story. My kid's are big fans of that particular piece of history. Mexican bog jumper on my father's side and have the Miguel O'Connor type names in the family. My kid's mother's family is fresh off the boat Irish immigrant so our kid's are pretty steeped in both Mexican and Irish culture.

 

[Cacti 191]

3 hours ago, Helobious said:

The San Patricios are legends in Mexico for how they fought in the Mexican-American War. 

I’m fairly familiar with Texas history and this is the first time I’ve heard of Saint Patrick's Battalion. Thanks for bringing it up.

A quick search indicates that many of them were deserters from the U.S. Army, and were treated harshly after the war due to the fact that they took up arms against the U.S. It also appears that the Irish deserted to Mexico, in part, because they were Catholics and didn’t want to fight what they saw as a ‘Protestant’ war against a Catholic nation.

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

I've often wondered if Mexico had held off on inviting in Protestant Americans for a few years more....In 1845, the Potato Famine started to decimate the Irish. Imagine if Mexico had brought a million or so of them to Texas over the next ten years, diverting them from America in the process. 

[F250 28777]

43 minutes ago, Cacti said:

I’m fairly familiar with Texas history and this is the first time I’ve heard of Saint Patrick's Battalion. Thanks for bringing it up.

A quick search indicates that many of them were deserters from the U.S. Army, and were treated harshly after the war due to the fact that they took up arms against the U.S. It also appears that the Irish deserted to Mexico, in part, because they were Catholics and didn’t want to fight what they saw as a ‘Protestant’ war against a Catholic nation.

Well, yeah the U.S. was predominantly an Anglo Protestant nation invading a Non-Anglo Catholic nation. Poor Irish Catholics grew up under the boot heel of another Anglo Protestant foreign occupier so you can probably see why they would side with Mexico. Catholicism was a big motivator but the English attitude of treating the Irish like dirt was passed down to Anglo-Americans on this side of the pond too.

 

[RDCanecutter 26445]

4 hours ago, Helobious said:

The San Patricios are legends in Mexico for how they fought in the Mexican-American War. 

If you ever find yourself talking to a cute girl in a bar in Monterrey, and you can puzzle together enough Spanish to sorta kinda imply that you are connected in some way to the San Patricio battalion, well, that isn't a bad thing.

I mean, you know you're lying, she knows you're lying, but it's a really appealing lie. Shows some effort and sensitivity.

[F250 28777]

Just now, RDCanecutter said:

If you ever find yourself talking to a cute girl in a bar in Monterrey, and you can puzzle together enough Spanish to sorta kinda imply that you are connected in some way to the San Patricio battalion, well, that isn't a bad thing.

I mean, you know you're lying, she knows you're lying, but it's a really appealing lie. Shows some effort and sensitivity.

[Helobious 9454]

6 minutes ago, RDCanecutter said:

If you ever find yourself talking to a cute girl in a bar in Monterrey, and you can puzzle together enough Spanish to sorta kinda imply that you are connected in some way to the San Patricio battalion, well, that isn't a bad thing.

I mean, you know you're lying, she knows you're lying, but it's a really appealing lie. Shows some effort and sensitivity.

As a white-looking mexican person I could easily sell that. I should actually probably do a DNA test to see if I have any Irish blood. Yeah they’d use my DNA to clone me or whatever they do but it’d still be cool to know. 

[Armybrat 40849]

1 hour ago, Cacti said:

I’m fairly familiar with Texas history and this is the first time I’ve heard of Saint Patrick's Battalion. Thanks for bringing it up.

A quick search indicates that many of them were deserters from the U.S. Army, and were treated harshly after the war due to the fact that they took up arms against the U.S. It also appears that the Irish deserted to Mexico, in part, because they were Catholics and didn’t want to fight what they saw as a ‘Protestant’ war against a Catholic nation.

Correct. 
16 of the deserters were hanged by the US occupation forces afterwards.

 

[RDCanecutter 26445]

3 minutes ago, Helobious said:

As a white-looking mexican person I could easily sell that. I should actually probably do a DNA test to see if I have any Irish blood. Yeah they’d use my DNA to clone me or whatever they do but it’d still be cool to know. 

As the first step in your transformation into Irishness, I advise you to lie about both the San Patricio battalion, AND the DNA test.

Anyway, almost half of the Patricios were Germans. 

 

[RDCanecutter 26445]

10 minutes ago, RDCanecutter said:

As the first step in your transformation into Irishness, I advise you to lie about both the San Patricio battalion, AND the DNA test.

Anyway, almost half of the Patricios were Germans. 

 

PS: Oh snap. Caveman Spaniard = Caveman Irish, before either Spanish or Irish language existed. It's a thin angle, but you'll be in a bar, work it, work it.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/genetic-studies-show-our-closest-relatives-are-found-in-galicia-and-the-basque-region-1.700877

[spoiler]ANCESTRAL LINKS:WHAT DO pygmy shrews, badgers, mountain hares, pine martins and Irish people have in common? All probably originally came to Ireland on boats from northern Spain.

Our closest relatives are found in various parts of Galicia and the Basque country according to genetic studies led by Prof Dan Bradley of Trinity College Dublin’s Smurfit Institute of Genetics. He presented his research over the weekend at the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting in Chicago.

He was joined by Queen’s University Belfast archaeologist and linguist Prof James Mallory who talked about efforts to link these DNA studies with the transmission of languages across western Europe.

The chair of the session was the Government’s chief scientific adviser, Prof Patrick Cunningham.

Prof Bradley and colleagues have done extensive genetic analysis into where the Irish came from and how they got to Ireland. He studies genes associated with the Y chromosome, a genetic inheritance that comes via the father.

By tracking the presence of certain Y chromosome markers he can travel back in time to map our relatedness to others across Europe. He explained how he had also done this with the two main species of cattle, the familiar flat-backed cattle and the hump-backed cattle seen in India and Africa.

The human data definitively showed that our strongest relatedness was with the northern Iberian peninsula, with this genetic signal strongest for the Irish living today in the west of Ireland. These in turn were likely the closest relatives of the migrants who originally settled in Ireland.

Genetic studies of Irish fauna also showed this distinctive signal, he said. “The Irish badgers are Spanish, but the British badgers are not. The fauna of Ireland seems to be divergent. How does one explain this,” he asked.

The most likely explanation was that the island was settled by migrants from northern Spain as the glaciers that covered Ireland from the last ice age melted away. “It seems to me that most animals in Ireland came by boat. There seems to have been some communication with southern Europe.”

 

The Book of Invasionsfrom the 8th century talked about an invasion by the Spanish king Milesius, he said.

His group also looked for genetic linkages between people sharing a common surname, something passed along from the male lineage like the Y chromosome.

They found linkages that traced back, to the famous Ui Neill kindred, from whom Niall Noigiallagh, Niall of the nine hostages was descended.

Prof Mallory described attempts to match up the transmission of languages with the dispersal of DNA as people migrated across Europe. It was extremely difficult however due to confounding influences including language transmission via “elite dominance”.

Settled areas with a unique language later taken over by invaders would see language displacement, with the newcomers imposing their own language. However, the local gene pool would remain and would dilute the genetic influence of the newcomers.

This was possibly the reason why when one looked for genetic evidence of the Celts in Ireland these Celtic genes could not be found. Studies of this dynamic has occurred in what is now Hungary showed a mismatch between the dominant language and the dominant genetic influence. “Modern DNA is no predictor of the modern Hungarian language,” Prof Mallory said.

[/spoiler]

Edited June 25, 2021 by RDCanecutter
the Sassenach have undone my spoiler

[atomheartbevo 89674]

45 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

I've often wondered if Mexico had held off on inviting in Protestant Americans for a few years more....In 1845, the Potato Famine started to decimate the Irish. Imagine if Mexico had brought a million or so of them to Texas over the next ten years, diverting them from America in the process. 

Why fuck up a perfectly good land by inviting in the fucking Irish?

But it actually makes a lot of sense - a high percentage of the Irish coming over were Catholic and they hated Anglos/English, which would be great for Mexico.

Let's say that Austin's colonial plans never happen, and your idea happens instead. There still will be plenty of Americans sneaking in (one branch of my family was in NE Texas by the 1820s, and there were plenty of others - I've walked enough cemeteries and studied enough records from that era), but they will be small enough in numbers, and unorganized enough that it won't be like the situation that led to the Texas Revolution.  Without Stephen F. Austin and his colony, you don't get widespread slavery in Texas either (this will be important below).  

A bit of a wild card are the other territories that were rising up against the Mexican government during that era, but without the resources that were sucked up by the Texas Revolution, the Mexican government comes out of the 1830s relatively stronger as a result.  A stronger Mexican government in the 1840s is less tempting of a fight for the US, and some of the territories that rebelled may not even rebel (or at least not for long) without the Texas Revolution.

You don't get the Treaties of Velasco obviously, and you obviously don't get the annexation by the US, since that was based on Texas becoming independent in the 1830s.

If you get a bunch of Irish flooding in during the 1840s, the chances of the US annexing Texas drop even more (and without the Treaties of Velasco it would have to be by brute force) - the Anglo types may not have wanted to take in a Catholic territory peopled by Mexicans and Irish anyways, and the South would have been violently opposed to adding another anti-slave state/territory, especially a massive one that bordered Louisiana and Arkansas, or worse, if Texas was broken up a bit, multiple anti-slave states bordering LA and AR.  That would have skewed Congress even more against the South.

In your scenario, you start getting a bunch of Catholic folks who are Irish (Celtic), and never identify with the United States and are not fans of the Anglo culture.  So Texas is still a Mexican territory with a lot of loyal Irish, and there is no Mexican War with the United States, and no slavery.

That leads us to where it gets really interesting:

1. If the Mexican-American War never happens, that wipes out a lot of the field/combat experience that a lot of Civil War generals had, which diminishes their records quite a bit - some of the major leaders at the start of the Civil War were leaders precisely because they had been recognized during their service as junior officers in Mexico.  We could have a far different starting lineup for both teams.
2. With an anti-slavery Mexican state/territory on the western border of the Confederate States of Louisiana and Arky instead of pro-slavery Texas, what does this mean for a potential Civil War?  With Mexico and the Northern US states being opposed to slavery, do they cooperate?  Does the US get access to Houston/Galveston as a potential base at the start of the war to move against New Orleans and the Mississippi?  Do slaves start bailing on Louisiana and making their way into Mexican-owned Texas?
3. Without Texas in the mix, the Confederate military is down 8-10% strength-wise, and arguably the Confederacy might have had to deploy a large number of troops along the Texas border.
4. Without Texas in the mix, the US Navy has a smaller amount of coastline to blockade, and the South is down some much-needed ports from the start.

It's a very cool scenario, I must say.  I actually think it changes the dynamics of the Civil War quite a bit.

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

9 minutes ago, RDCanecutter said:

They found linkages that traced back, to the famous Ui Neill kindred, from whom Niall Noigiallagh, Niall of the nine hostages was descended.

My folks, per 23andme. Along the way we've learned a thing or two -- one of them is this: never make eye contact with an Irish badger. 

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

6 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Why fuck up a perfectly good land by inviting in the fucking Irish?

But it actually makes a lot of sense - a high percentage of the Irish coming over were Catholic and they hated Anglos/English, which would be great for Mexico.

Let's say that Austin's colonial plans never happen, and your idea happens instead. There still will be plenty of Americans sneaking in (one branch of my family was in NE Texas by the 1820s, and there were plenty of others - I've walked enough cemeteries and studied enough records from that era), but they will be small enough in numbers, and unorganized enough that it won't be like the situation that led to the Texas Revolution.  Without Stephen F. Austin and his colony, you don't get widespread slavery in Texas either (this will be important below).  

A bit of a wild card are the other territories that were rising up against the Mexican government during that era, but without the resources that were sucked up by the Texas Revolution, the Mexican government comes out of the 1830s relatively stronger as a result.  A stronger Mexican government in the 1840s is less tempting of a fight for the US, and some of the territories that rebelled may not even rebel (or at least not for long) without the Texas Revolution.

You don't get the Treaties of Velasco obviously, and you obviously don't get the annexation by the US, since that was based on Texas becoming independent in the 1830s.

If you get a bunch of Irish flooding in during the 1840s, the chances of the US annexing Texas drop even more (and without the Treaties of Velasco it would have to be by brute force) - the Anglo types may not have wanted to take in a Catholic territory peopled by Mexicans and Irish anyways, and the South would have been violently opposed to adding another anti-slave state/territory, especially a massive one that bordered Louisiana and Arkansas, or worse, if Texas was broken up a bit, multiple anti-slave states bordering LA and AR.  That would have skewed Congress even more against the South.

In your scenario, you start getting a bunch of Catholic folks who are Irish (Celtic), and never identify with the United States and are not fans of the Anglo culture.  So Texas is still a Mexican territory with a lot of loyal Irish, and there is no Mexican War with the United States, and no slavery.

That leads us to where it gets really interesting:

1. If the Mexican-American War never happens, that wipes out a lot of the field/combat experience that a lot of Civil War generals had, which diminishes their records quite a bit - some of the major leaders at the start of the Civil War were leaders precisely because they had been recognized during their service as junior officers in Mexico.  We could have a far different starting lineup for both teams.
2. With an anti-slavery Mexican state/territory on the western border of the Confederate States of Louisiana and Arky instead of pro-slavery Texas, what does this mean for a potential Civil War?  With Mexico and the Northern US states being opposed to slavery, do they cooperate?  Does the US get access to Houston/Galveston as a potential base at the start of the war to move against New Orleans and the Mississippi?  Do slaves start bailing on Louisiana and making their way into Mexican-owned Texas?
3. Without Texas in the mix, the Confederate military is down 8-10% strength-wise, and arguably the Confederacy might have had to deploy a large number of troops along the Texas border.
4. Without Texas in the mix, the US Navy has a smaller amount of coastline to blockade, and the South is down some much-needed ports from the start.

It's a very cool scenario, I must say.  I actually think it changes the dynamics of the Civil War quite a bit.

Also, how much cannon fodder infantry would the Union lack without the Irish? 

There probably would have been no NYC draft riot, nor would we have Gangs of New York today.

To fill labor shortages, would the USA have looked elsewhere? Maybe started in on the Italians a little earlier, or incentivized even more Germans to come? 

Would these Catholic Italians and Bavarians fight against Catholic Mexicans and Irexicans? 

[atomheartbevo 89674]

5 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Also, how much cannon fodder infantry would the Union lack without the Irish? 

There probably would have been no NYC draft riot, nor would we have Gangs of New York today.

To fill labor shortages, would the USA have looked elsewhere? Maybe started in on the Italians a little earlier, or incentivized even more Germans to come? 

Would these Catholic Italians and Bavarians fight against Catholic Mexicans and Irexicans? 

The Northern states had 22 million people in 1860, the Southern 9 million.  The Union still hadn't tapped into its full potential before the war ended.

I think the loss of Texas would have affected the Confederates far more than the loss of some Irish would have affected the Union (and I still think plenty of Irish end up in the US, following relatives who were already there before the potato famines).

Edited June 25, 2021 by atomheartbevo

[Cacti 191]

58 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

Correct. 
16 of the deserters were hanged by the US occupation forces afterwards.

 

According to this blog there were three execution days. 16 were hung on 10 September 1847 and 4 were hung on 11 September. On 13 September William S. Harney, Colonel of the 2nd U. S. Dragoons, carried out his orders to hang the remaining 30. 

[Cacti 191]

48 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

If you get a bunch of Irish flooding in during the 1840s....

I wonder how the Irish and Comanche would have interacted.

[Armybrat 40849]

11 minutes ago, Cacti said:

According to this blog there were three execution days. 16 were hung on 10 September 1847 and 4 were hung on 11 September. On 13 September William S. Harney, Colonel of the 2nd U. S. Dragoons, carried out his orders to hang the remaining 30. 

Yes, but the 16 were executed when the US Flag was run up over Chapultepec Castle after it fell to Scott’s troops.

Another unit revered as national heroes (and rightly so) were the military cadets who were part of the castle’s defensive forces. Legend has it that some of them jumped off the cliff rather than surrender to the hated gringos.

[atomheartbevo 89674]

35 minutes ago, Cacti said:

I wonder how the Irish and Comanche would have interacted.

If you look at a map of Texas, and look at the generally-accepted Comanche territory - most bogs in Texas were to the east of that area, so I doubt the two peoples would meet very often.

[RDCanecutter 26445]

On 6/22/2021 at 6:09 PM, 4HE said:

What amazes me was just how quickly the Comanche went from whipping boy to a dominant force. Utterly unmatched in history in my opinion.  

Basically the plot line of all the coolest 1970s Kung Fu movies.

[RDCanecutter 26445]

I am supposed to be 2nd Cousins 7 times removed from David Crockett, on the Searcy side. Given the intermarriage and huge family sizes of that time, probably only 12 million Americans can say that. So yes, I want a cookie. I don't know any cool personal things my alleged cousin said to the rest of the family, other than he thought that my direct ancestors, the [MostHatedFamilyNameInTheHighlands] were mean. Well of course they were. Whether this meant they were stingy, or that they did things like jumping the nerd kids and cutting their noses off, who knows.

I'm related to most Shelby's, so I am claiming J.O. Shelby who went to Mexico after the Civil War and whose men fought for the French and especially for Empress Carlota. It's way more awesome than just sitting around and rebuilding in peacetime running a livery stable or whatever.

Another Canecutter was some sort of feudal retainer of Gen. Joe Wheeler, who almost pulled a Shelby by going to Mexico too, but I read in a book that his "staff" talked him out of it. His staff, or a yap-jaw Canecutter?

To book-end all this mayhem, an earlier ancestor was an Irish glovemaker who settled in the wilds of Pennsylvania. During the French & Indian War he served in the militia, doing winter camp around Albany New York, where I don't think anything happened. But he rounds out this tale of scrapping (or not) with everybody from Canada to Mexico City.

[Cacti 191]

I’m doing some more reading concerning the Patricios, and the Mexican government (perhaps General Mariano Arista?) issued a proclamation containing “advice to the soldiers of the United States army”: 

Quote

We live in peace and friendship with the nations you come from. Why do you want to fight against us? Come to us! We will welcome you as friends with open arms, take care of your needs and offer you more than the Yankees can provide. Due to their baseness, we have been forced into this war. Join us and fight with us for our rights and our sacred imperiled religion, against an infidel enemy…

Evidently that offer of material benefits—as well as the appeal to religion loyalty—was too good to pass up for a few hundred dissatisfied U.S. soldiers. And it’s interesting that the Catholics (at least the Mexican Catholics) considered the Protestant U.S. to be infidels.

[F250 28777]

2 hours ago, Cacti said:

I’m doing some more reading concerning the Patricios, and the Mexican government (perhaps General Mariano Arista?) issued a proclamation containing “advice to the soldiers of the United States army”: 

Evidently that offer of material benefits—as well as the appeal to religion loyalty—was too good to pass up for a few hundred dissatisfied U.S. soldiers. And it’s interesting that the Catholics (at least the Mexican Catholics) considered the Protestant U.S. to be infidels.

It was more than just religion and offers of land, the U.S. army was full of immigrants who happened to be from disliked cultures during a time of sweeping nativism where whiteness hadn't been extended to non-Anglo Saxons. Basically you had all these people that were hated in America for simply being Irish, German, French, Italian, Polish and Catholic. These people and their families were treated like shit and they probably had no loyalty to the United States. They were essentially being used to fight a war and target a populace that they had more in common with than they did with non-immigrant Americans.

The infidel thing isn't surprising considering the time. It was used a lot in dealing with the New World by both Catholics and Protestants. The inclusion in that letter makes sense considering it was targeted towards Catholics who were part of a nation with a Protestant hegemony that was invading a Catholic nation. Catholic churches being burned in America and Mexico probably made it sound convincing.

 

 

[Armybrat 40849]

14 hours ago, Cacti said:

And it’s interesting that the Catholics (at least the Mexican Catholics) considered the Protestant U.S. to be infidels.

Well yeah, they were still pissed that the Inquisition was no longer an active policy in dealing with the heretics.

[RDCanecutter 26445]

10 hours ago, Armybrat said:

Well yeah, they were still pissed that the Inquisition was no longer an active policy in dealing with the heretics.

I did not expect to hear about the Mexican Inquisition.

[F250 28777]

1 hour ago, RDCanecutter said:

I did not expect to hear about the Mexican Inquisition.

That's what I called it when I got caught sneaking in the house late one night drunk back in high school.

 

[Pods 7552]

1 hour ago, RDCanecutter said:

I did not expect to hear about the Mexican Inquisition.

Their weapon is surprise. 

[Gatorubet 30239]

Legend has it that some of them jumped off the cliff rather than surrender to the hated gringos.

Or, the Gringos could have assisted said jumping…and invented that legend as cover.

[ROFL BOX 6649]

Krys Boyd is a Texas gem. The author of the book will be on her NPR show ‘Think’ today at noon.

I can't help listening to her show & she reminds me of the DJ interviewing Wayne & Garth in W.World 1 ("Uh huh... yeah, m-hm... sure" [ignoring everything, asks scripted question because she isn't actually paying attention].

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

[ROFL BOX 6649]

Their weapon is surprise. 

VERY unexpected.

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

[ROFL BOX 6649]

I wonder how the Irish and Comanche would have interacted.

[blazing]The Comanches would probably have tax free liquor stores.[/saddles]

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

7 minutes ago, ROFL BOX said:

[blazing]The Comanches would probably have tax free liquor stores.[/saddles]

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk
 

Lord, a half-Colleen/half Comanche chick would be something else....Talking like County Kerry + Quahhadi 

[bolverk 29679]

On 6/25/2021 at 5:38 PM, MaybeACoordinator said:

My folks, per 23andme. Along the way we've learned a thing or two -- one of them is this: never make eye contact with an Irish badger. 

My ancestors, House of Burke/Clanricarde, and yours didn't seem to get along too well.

[DoobieWah 1441]

On 6/25/2021 at 11:38 PM, MaybeACoordinator said:

My folks, per 23andme. Along the way we've learned a thing or two -- one of them is this: never make eye contact with an Irish badger. 

Yeah. I got that email too.