Jump to content

“Come and take it” deemed anti-Mexican

TonyTexas

By TonyTexas
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Sawbonz

Sawbonz 27436

Posted
Posted
23 hours ago, Anastasis said:

I had no idea prior to this thread that the flag had been supposedly coopted by white supremacists. I don’t really give a shit about any of this nonsense and will continue to fly my Gonzalez flag. 

So I guess you’re saying… Come and take it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89449

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

...wasn't there a deal with landowners having imported African born slaves which was against some law or am I getting that mixed up with the 'South' south? (I consider Texas as Southern, but I get that its history had a different trajectory than say, Mississippi.) I remember going to a plantation with one of my children, or maybe it was Washington-on-the-Brazos and there was something about an uprising that occurred prior to the Civil War and was somehow related to Mexico, but again, my memory is foggy. I may also be getting some mixed up with the posters on here who have mentioned the Texas statehood documents as well. I don't know much at all about the Battle of Gonzales but I look forward to the discussion.

2 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Much of what we learn in 7th grade Texas history is mythology designed to instill state pride. That is by design. 

The truth is much more nuanced and doesn't always align with the popular origin story.

And lest we forget why Texas joined the Confederacy.

https://www.tsl.texas.gov/ref/abouttx/secession/2feb1861.html

DECLARATION OF CAUSES: February 2, 1861
A declaration of the causes which impel the State of Texas to secede from the Federal Union.

The government of the United States, by certain joint resolutions, bearing date the 1st day of March, in the year A.D. 1845, proposed to the Republic of Texas, then a free, sovereign and independent nation, the annexation of the latter to the former as one of the co-equal States thereof,

The people of Texas, by deputies in convention assembled, on the fourth day of July of the same year, assented to and accepted said proposals and formed a constitution for the proposed State, upon which on the 29th day of December in the same year, said State was formally admitted into the Confederated Union.

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated States to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slave-holding States.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MaybeACoordinator

MaybeACoordinator 8349

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

in the bolded part, it sounds like Texas didn't even allow for freeing your slaves unless you sent them out of Texas. Didn't know that. Once a slave in Texas, always a slave in Texas. Harsh.

The US stopped slave importation in 1808. Did Texas allow it during the republic years? This section above sounds like they were ok with it.

 

Not exactly -- you could also go the route of seeking Congressional approval for each slave you wanted to free. 

Texas did not "allow" importation of slaves but was either incapable or unwilling to enforce the law against it, which was primarily a British initiative, and because Britannia ruled the waves, other nations reluctantly signed on and only enforced it in fits and starts.

Slave ships were sneaking into isolated Texas bays as late as 1850, I think, when what was long believed* to be the last African slave ship landed just inside the mouth of the San Bernard River in Brazoria County. There and up the coast to Louisiana the practice went back to before the Revolution. (The law specified African slaves -- you could bring in them in from other countries in the Americas, so you really once you made it to somewhere like Cuba you were homefree. It served as sort of a slave-laundering point; after they were landed there, they became Cuban and no longer African, even if they knew not a word of Spanish.)

Dudes like Bowie, Travis and Fannin were up to their eyeballs in this trade. Look up "Monroe Edwards' -- by all accounts, wokesters of today and his contemporaries, he was one of the most titanic scuzzballs in Texas history. He became so infamous he was name-dropped in one of Herman Melville's books. 

*The last slave ship to arrive in America was brought in by some rich Mobile asshole on a bet in 1860....Despite the fact that theoretically this was a capital offense for both the shipper and the ship's captain, southern papers openly bragged about this feat, as the country was falling apart. Some of these editorials were hoping this would just be the first of many, many more...Anyway, those slaves were freed rapidly enough after being taken that they were able to all find each other again and establish "Africatown" outside of Mobile where they kept a bunch of their customs and languages into the 20th Century. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
On 9/9/2021 at 1:34 PM, hobbes2702 said:

Like I said, was never a tradition. The hand wringing over the decision to stop doing it is beyond stupid. Why don’t we try coming up with something that’s actually unique to the university and the city it represents. 

fat chicks and tacos?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sawbonz

Sawbonz 27436

Posted
Posted

Y’all know who ruled Mexico in the 19th century right? They weren’t a vanguard of diversity and inclusion. Yes they outlawed slavery, but Santa Anna didn’t want any black people in Mexico, whether slave or free. In fact I think Juarez was the first leader who wasn’t a European descendant

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18659

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Y’all know who ruled Mexico in the 19th century right? They weren’t a vanguard of diversity and inclusion. Yes they outlawed slavery, but Santa Anna didn’t want any black people in Mexico, whether slave or free. In fact I think Juarez was the first leader who wasn’t a European descendant

Kind of like those Northern aggressors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RDCanecutter

RDCanecutter 26281

Posted
Posted
37 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Y’all know who ruled Mexico in the 19th century right? They weren’t a vanguard of diversity and inclusion. Yes they outlawed slavery, but Santa Anna didn’t want any black people in Mexico, whether slave or free. In fact I think Juarez was the first leader who wasn’t a European descendant

Vicente Guerrero dice: "¿Qué soy yo, higado picado?"

Vicente_Ram%C3%B3n_Guerrero_Salda%C3%B1a

Vicente Ramón Guerrero Saldaña (Spanish: [biˈsente raˈmoŋ ɡeˈreɾo salˈdaɲa]; August 10, 1782 – February 14, 1831) was one of the leading revolutionary generals of the Mexican War of Independence. He fought against Spain for independence in the early 19th century, and later served as President of Mexico. He was of Afro-Mestizo descent,[1] championed the cause of Mexico's common people, and abolished slavery on a national level during his brief term as president.[2] His capture and treacherous execution in 1831 by the conservative and ex-royalist regime that had ousted him in 1829 was a shock to the nation.[3]

*^^^estolen from the Wikis

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sawbonz

Sawbonz 27436

Posted
Posted

Was he elected or did he come to power in a coup? My point is Come and Take It is not inherently a white supremacist motto given the power structure of Mexico during the Texas Revolution. I guess it has been co-opted by white nationalists at this point which sucks. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RDCanecutter

RDCanecutter 26281

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Sawbonz said:

Was he elected or did he come to power in a coup? My point is Come and Take It is not inherently a white supremacist motto given the power structure of Mexico during the Texas Revolution. I guess it has been co-opted by white nationalists at this point which sucks. 

No earthly idea hermano. I didn't know that it was he who outlawed slavery. He's got a state named after him, that's all I've got.

To your larger point that Mexico was run by some White Supremist types in the 1800s, I do not disagree. I mean, it is still a reeeeeally easy place to be a White man, you still get upgrades on everything if you look like a telenovela star, or a viking, which is often the same look.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
troph

troph 24563

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 9/9/2021 at 1:12 PM, DalTxHornFan said:

What bullshit.  There were loads of Texicans of Mexican descent that were opposed to the tyrannical dictatorship of Santa Anna.  Some died at the Alamo.  Some at Goliad.  Thankfully, not many at San Jacinto.

Come and take it, Indeed!

So it’s anti Mexican and insurrectionist at the same time? I love the flag, I love Texas independence era history and the various iterations of Texas flags. That said, the message of the flag at its origin while maybe noble to us, is also an extremely aggressive and violent message. Outside of history it should be used sparingly and certainly should not be used seriously in a modern world in any way. In fact, I’d argue to use it to send a serious message today is to defile those who died flying the original. There, a third reason it’s offensive. 

Edited by troph
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beau Vine

Beau Vine 54003

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, troph said:

So it’s anti Mexican and insurrectionist at the same time? I love the flag, I love Texas independence era history and the various iterations of Texas flags. That said, the message of the flag at its origin while maybe noble to us, is also an extremely aggressive and violent message. Outside of history it should be used sparingly and certainly should not be used seriously in a modern world in any way. In fact, I’d argue to use it to send a serious message today is to defile those who died flying the original. There, a third reason it’s offensive. 

E8OhDsxWQAcvXQ0.jpg

  • Like 2
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NotActuallyALonghorn

NotActuallyALonghorn 4968

Posted
Posted
On 9/10/2021 at 4:23 PM, David Dennison said:

Cool.

While we wait, let's not forget Section 9 of the Constitution of the Republic of Texas, which reads, in part:

"All persons of color who were slaves for life previous to their emigration to Texas, and who are now held in bondage, shall remain in the like state of servitude . . . Congress shall pass no laws to prohibit emigrants from bringing their slaves into the republic with them, and holding them by the same tenure by which such slaves were held in the United States; nor shall congress have the power to emancipate slaves; nor shall any slave holder be allowed to emancipate his or her slave without the consent of congress, unless he or she shall send his or her slave or slaves without the limits of the republic."

Seems pertinent.

It's not at all pertinent and you either have the intelligence of a very small child, or you are blatantly trolling. Either way, your commentary has no place in a discussion among adults. As was explained to you before you commented and again since, the Battle of Gonzalez had nothing to do with slavery and was more about centrist versus federalist control. I suppose you think that the other states that revolted against centrist Mexico were only revolting so that they could preserve slavery? Or that the Mexican flag with 1824 in the middle of it was some sort of secret code to bring about a slave driver's utopia? By boiling down every conflict between the Mexican state of Texas and the central Mexican government to slavery, you are pissing on all of the graves of all of the people of hispanic descent who fought to try and better themselves, you racist piece of shit.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NotActuallyALonghorn

NotActuallyALonghorn 4968

Posted
Posted
On 9/10/2021 at 4:23 PM, David Dennison said:

Cool.

While we wait, let's not forget Section 9 of the Constitution of the Republic of Texas, which reads, in part:

"All persons of color who were slaves for life previous to their emigration to Texas, and who are now held in bondage, shall remain in the like state of servitude . . . Congress shall pass no laws to prohibit emigrants from bringing their slaves into the republic with them, and holding them by the same tenure by which such slaves were held in the United States; nor shall congress have the power to emancipate slaves; nor shall any slave holder be allowed to emancipate his or her slave without the consent of congress, unless he or she shall send his or her slave or slaves without the limits of the republic."

Seems pertinent.

It's not at all pertinent and you either have the intelligence of a very small child, or you are blatantly trolling. Either way, your commentary has no place in a discussion among adults. As was explained to you before you commented and again since, the Battle of Gonzalez had nothing to do with slavery and was more about centrist versus federalist control. I suppose you think that the other states that revolted against centrist Mexico were only revolting so that they could preserve slavery? Or that the Mexican flag with 1824 in the middle of it was some sort of secret code to bring about a slave driver's utopia? By boiling down every conflict between the Mexican state of Texas and the central Mexican government to slavery, you are pissing on all of the graves of all of the people of hispanic descent who fought to try and better themselves, you racist piece of shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...