Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - Why Americans Love America and Why Texans Love Texas

- Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)

- - Why Americans Love America and Why Texans Love Texas (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/52186-why-americans-love-america-why-texans-love-texas.html)

Why Americans Love America and Why Texans Love Texas

I wrote this last night after seeing The Alamo and it is just a summation of how I feel about my Home Country and my Home State, and how I think, a great deal of my fellow citizens feel as well. I hope you guys enjoy.

Quote:

Why Americans Love America
and
Why Texans Love Texas
By Tyler K. Campbell
Humble Texan

It has occurred to me after seeing The Alamo, starring Dennis Quaid and Billy Bob Thornton, that America, is a very special place in the world. This is one of the more obvious of statements because as Americans, we are guaranteed inalienable rights. Yet, how we came to be as a nation is even more special. No other nation had to fight for the very existence of itself. Sure, others had to stave off invasion or accept oppression, and there were various revolutions in Latin America, South America, and the Caribbean, but for the most part, they have not enjoyed the stability that resides in America today. No other nation had to stave off a mercantilist system that denied them a say in what taxes were levied and how they were governed. This lead to a desire for representation in British Parliament and eventually, seeing that representation was not going to be given, revolution was discussed and implemented in 1775 with battles at Concord and Lexington. Later on the Declaration of Independence was drafted and signed with few signatures on July 4, 1776 and unanimously signed on August 2, 1776. By all means, none of these men were perfect (although a few actually came close) but they were practical and wished to set up a government which could benefit its people and change when necessary.

Nations have endured revolution before and merely returned to the rule which had been originally just as oppressive and corrupt, except a new name is attached, whether it is called constitutional monarchy, federal states, or whatever, the people are still under a government that they revolted against already. Take the French for an example: they shed an enormous amount of blood, most of it unnecessary, and for what? Nothing. France today is still under the rule of the aristocrat and very rarely are the people truly listened to. Russia is an even better example, because its troubles are three-fold. In 1917, the Bolsheviks revolted and toppled an incompetent ruler and put in its place what the world knows as “communism”, only to be thrown out of the frying pan and into the fire. For almost an entire century the Soviets oppressed their people and then exploited them. Today, Federalist Russia is really no better. Hard-line communists are still prominent in the government and the President is an ex-KGB man. The Russian Mafia runs rampant and they picked up the exploitation job and they benefit from the convenient network of ex-KGB buddies who have shared bottles of Stolychniya for decades since they began their mission of “defying the Capitalist West”.

As the story goes, America is really the only nation that has manged to fight for its independence and retain stability and gain a great deal of prosperity. This is why Americans are so nationalistic, because we have succeeded where others have failed. Also, Americans realize that men fought and died for them, many of them fighting for their own reasons, but without really knowing it or living to see the success of America and its people, those brave young men provided a way for everyday folks to live. Today, brave young men still give their lives, but this time, they know wholeheartedly that they are allowing a father to play catch with his son, or a mother to teach her daughter the family recipe for chocolate cake. This strikes a chord in Americans and we respond in kind with pride and love for our country and those who defend it. We feel we owe a debt of gratitude to those souls who wanted a decent living and fought for it, and to those souls who fight for our ability to do so today.

Texas, like America, is in a unique situation that it only shares with thirteen other states, a far greater number of brotherhood that Texas shares with America, than America shares with the world. Texas was the last state that had to fight for its right to exist. On March 2, 1836 the Texan Declaration of Independence was passed at the behest of General Houston. Four days later on March 6, 1836, Santa Anna’s army overwhelmed the close to 200 men defending the Alamo. Nearly a month later on April 21, 1836 Sam Houston had his Waterloo for Santa Anna, but this place is called San Jacinto, a name that evokes great pride and love in the heart of Texans everywhere. General Houston lead the charge shouting “Remember the Alamo!” the Battle of San Jacinto was over in 18 minutes with the General suffering a broken leg because his horse was shot. It was also on that day that Santa Anna traded his life for Texas, creating the Republic of Texas.

Now that the history lesson is over the story behind the story is to be told. To be honest, with the exception of Congressman David Crockett, the men that entered Texas and the Alamo could be considered the dregs of society. Lieutenant William Barrett Travis was arrogant, had women he liked to associate with, and wasn’t very charitable to his wife whom he was separated from, hence the reasons for their divorce a year before the Alamo. Sam Houston was a drunkard and a land-swindler, as was Jim Bowie. Not to mention, until it became absolutely necessary, they all hated each other. David Crockett was almost like an innocent bystander trying to live up to the overblown stories and escapades. Yet they all knew they were fighting for something. Each man had his own reasons, but they all knew, as goes San Antonio, so goes Texas. They were fighting for the preservation of Texas and its people. Those that were at the Alamo knew that they were probably not going to make it out alive and yet, those 183 men, with legends among them, gave their lives all in the name of independence.

For Texans it’s a two-time deal, because they as Americans feel pride and love for their country, but they also feel the same for the 28th State of the Union. For the most part, Texans feel they owe their gratitude to those men of history that helped establish the United States of America and the Republic of Texas. This is also probably why you find that most Texans can shoot just about every gun known to man. They are constantly aware of the fact that shootin’ straight is what established their nation and their state, and that they wish to keep their nation and their state from being debunked.

All-in-all, parallels between the USA and the RT (Republic of Texas) can be continuously drawn. They are both unique as to how they came about, and they are both unique as to the levels of pride and love among their citizens. Our nationalism and stateism (for us Texans) is not because we’re the best at everything, we know we aren’t, but we realize that we owe a great deal of gratitude and respect to those that established a place for us to live and be born, and that same gratitude and respect should go to those who protect us as well. I guess this is a long-winded way for me to say that I love the United States and I love Texas, and so does every other American and Texan.

I recall fondly studying Texas History in school, and wondering how sad kids in other states must be if and when, in the 7th grade, they had to study the history of Wisconsin, for example.

Correct me if I'm wrong, because you're the Texan, but I was under the impression that the #1 reason Texas declared it's independence from Mexico was because of the issue of slavery. Mexico wasn't populating the area, and the Mexican government was fine with hoards of southern Americans to fill up the territory to fuel economic activity so long as they didn't hate on Mexico's control. When Mexico outlawed slavery, the Texas were all "WTF!" (due to the vast majority if southern slave-holders and the expansion of King Cotton into the west).

Thus Mexico fought to retain their territory, but it didn't work out so well (the battle at the Alamo occured during this time), and Texas knew damn well that it could not viably survive as a nation unto itself even if Mexico DID leave it alone, so it constantly begged the US to annex it. The USA was nervous to do so because they feared it would piss the Mexican gov't off to the maximum, but eventually went ahead with it anyway, which in turn triggered the Mexican-American War (where the US made off with a shitload more territory from Mexico).

Does the Alamo film discuss any of this, or is it just about a bunch of white guys in a church shooting Mexicans?

The US wasn't worried about fighting Mexico, it was worried about adding another slave state to the delicate balance at the time. Texas wasn't seeking annexation because it was worried about Mexico, but because it was flat broke. When Texas was annexed, it gave up parts of Oklahoma, N.Mexico, and Colorado in exchange for debt relief by the U.S. Yes, there were slaves in Texas, but not all that many of them compared to other Southern states, and it was not a primary issue in the Texas revolution.
I can't quote you sources off the top of my head, but I did make an "A" in History of Texas in college.

I almost hope someone challenges me on this.

Hey, I'll challenge you.

At least for the reason I'd like to see some sources; I can only imagine what a "History of Texas" course teaches Texans ;)

Quote:

I guess this is a long-winded way for me to say that I love the United States and I love Texas, and so does every other American and Texan.

Hmm. I don't want to sound like a dick, but I don't have an overall favorable impression of Texas. I'm from New England. It's kind of like the question "Why is there a hole in the roof of the Cowboy's staduim? So God can watch his team play." This is only considered a joke outside of Texas.

I suspect that Europeans see the entire USA the way that non-Texans see Texas.

Oy, this is not really the direction I wanted to go with my "essay" I guess you would call it. I was more looking to the direction as to why Americans have extreme nationalism and why Texans have extreme stateism (I made that one up) at least in the eyes of the surrounding world. I hear a lot of people ask me why I'm so proud of Texas, I could never really answer it until now and that is outlined in my "essay".

Edit: redlemon, that was my point, both have parallels drawn and that was more the direction I wanted to go with this thread. Oh, and you don't sound like a dick, that's your opinion, I'm not personally hurt by it.

Quote:

I don't want to sound like a dick, but I don't have an overall favorable impression of Texas. I'm from New England

I've lived in both the NE and in Texas. 99% of every stereotype about Texans is complete BS. 90% of every stereotype you hear about New Englanders is true.

Yes, I found Texas to be a hell of a lot nicer than the NE. The weather (even in August), the open spaces, and most of all the people.

In New England you wont see people walking down the street, and saying hello to complete strangers, here it's almost expected. I lived in South Texas where its a huge hispanic population, on easter/thanksgiving/july 4th/etc it's expected to go from house-to-house visiting all your friends families. Try showing up to someone elses house in the NE and they'd try to figure out wtf you're doing there.

I'm constantly amazed at how people view Texas, just last week someone from out of state asked if I used to ride my horse to highschool. I dont care if you dont like Texans, just try actually living in a place for a few years before you pass judgement.

Quote:

Originally posted by Seaver
I dont care if you dont like Texans, just try actually living in a place for a few years before you pass judgement.

True, true. As I said, it is merely my impression, and not backed up by anything useful such as facts. I only wanted to point out that the last line of the original essay was assuming too much.

But, as he said,

Quote:

Oy, this is not really the direction I wanted to go with my "essay" I guess you would call it.

, so let's not go further with a meaningless pissing war over regions of the country.

Quote:

Originally posted by redlemon
I suspect that Europeans see the entire USA the way that non-Texans see Texas.

Yup.
And the misguided notions Europeans have about America are as misguided as the notions that Yankees have about Texas. :)

I'll have to get back to ya'll re: sources, but let me look through my library tonight.

Oh, and I saw your point about that (addressed to redlemon) I'm not saying that all Americans love Texas, I was trying to use parallel sentence structure to say that Americans loved America and Texans loved both, sorry if that confused everyone.

i love the history of texas i thought it had a lot of parrallels to the american revolution mostly because of the demegauge (sp) factor a few powerful people overruled the masses

also the annexation only happened when texas tried to become a eurpean colony to piss america off

also the mexican american war happened because of a boundry dispute we thought the boundry was the rio grande and they thought it was somthing like the nachez i think, we put troops on the rio and mexico thought we were invading them and when they attacked we told the people that we were attacked unprovoked then we trounced all over them i don't think we have ever actually been affraid of mexico

funny how this stuff works :thumbsup:

nice "essay" by the way

Quote:

Originally posted by dy156
I'll have to get back to ya'll re: sources, but let me look through my library tonight.

I would appreciate that. Already it seems as though there are at least three different accounts of the social context preceding the war. If you got something official, I sure would like to read it.

I was just joshing you by the way in regards to challenging you--I'm more interested in reading the info you've got than making you prove your point.

something official?

like an official analysis of the social context of pre-statehood Texas?

hmm... doesn't seem very likely to me.

i can back mine up from the baiely textbook called :the american pagaient"

i'm studying for my AP test so i have to know all kinds of useless stuff

The river disputed was whether it was the Rio Nueces or Rio Grande that was the border.

There was no "dispute" though according to the treaty signed by Santa Anna himself. The treaty specifically stated the Rio Grande, him being pissed about the treaty later didnt give him the right to invade soverign soil of Texas or United States. Say what you will about the rest of the war and the massive landgrab that ensued, but the starting of the war was legit.

FWIW, I thought Mexico also liked the idea of settlers in the Texas area because it helped in their fights against the indian tribes living there at the time.

slightly (an understatement) biased, especially at the beginning, most of europe would love to disagree with the first few opening paragraphs. It could definatly do with less 'holier than thou' in places.

still, a good read none the less, and the responses from the americans on the board does help balance things out.

There's a real problem with this essay from the very beginning.

Quote:

No other nation had to fight for the very existence of itself. Sure, others had to stave off invasion or accept oppression, and there were various revolutions in Latin America, South America, and the Caribbean, but for the most part, they have not enjoyed the stability that resides in America today...

Texas was one of the first Southern states to secede from the United States, as soon as Lincoln was elected president...their main reason was to preserve the right to own slaves. I just wanted to add that the US did indeed have to fight for its own existence...north against south and more Americans died in the Civil War than in any other before or since.

i'm with meepa: that article, archer, is a strange thing to write after seeing an alamo movie. the war was fought, not to preserve texas, but to *create* texas. and its creation was founded on the belief that use of slaves is perfectly decent way to grow cotton, that the law against poaching animals was unfair, and (more fairly), that santa ana was a terrible leader of mexico.

now, it's true that texas colonists had developed a sence of community separate from mexicans, for obvious cultural reasons. and you could point to the war for texas independance as being the event that defined the birth of 'texas' as we know it today--soon afterwards independence, the anglo government worked hard to boot out the tejano population out of 'their' land. for people that believe that independence is more important than morals, perhaps you could be proud of an event like this.

also: the idea that america/texas are the only places where people have fought for their independance and created a properous society is completely false. all european countries, as some point in their history, fought for independence to create a prosperous country. germany fought off the roman empire and the segregation by the concert of europe. England fought for independence from the normans and eventually ruled the colonies of the world. Even the soviet union can be considered as a successful revolution to a new form of government, at least for the 40 years or so that it was a superpower. The only difference between these countries and the united states is that the those countries are past their peak of power, while the US has its decline to look forward to sometime in the future.

EDIT: I just noticed you said "no other nation had to fight for the existence of itself." You can't be serious?? Nearly every nation on the planet fought for independence! The only ones that didn't that come to mind are some of the recent european colonies that were more peacefully handed back their sovereignty.

Texas, hmmm,

When i visited Texas a couple years back, I took a cab from the Airport and the cab driver says to me, "So where y'all frum??"

I said, "Toronto, Canada"

"Canada, huh, I guess it's cold up thar?", he says.

"Can be in the winter", I say

Pause, look in the rear view mirror at the danged furiner.

"Ya'll got buzzards up in Canada?"

I am thinking, "what the fuck is this fucking guy talking about"

But I reply, "no, but we do have some pretty big crows I suppose"

Another look of concern in the rear view mirror....

Then I saw what he was getting at. There was a dead cow at the side of the road and the buzzards were chowing down.

"Well, alrightie, I am not in Kansas anymore" I am thinking.

You dont think we get that elsewhere?

I was in Mass. visiting some relatives, and one of the kids friend come over to visit (mind you he's 20).

Him: So you're from Texas 'eh?

Me: Yeah.

Him: So you got lots of cows over there 'eh?

Me: Yeah, cows outnumber the people in the town I'm from.

Him: So you have school over there?

Me: (amazed)... you have school here?

Him: Well just wonderin', dont get all defensive cowboy.

Me: (bit my tongue)

Him: So you ride horses to school? (actually serious)

Me: (turning on the sarcasm) Yeah, we also have a tumbleweed problem on our football field.

Him: Really? has anyone you known been killed in a duel (still serious)?

Me: (still sarcastic) Yeah, just last week at high noon....

Yeah this went on for a couple hours.. dont assume everyone is like a taxi driver in this state.

What's so bad about Wisconsin history ?

Quote:

What's so bad about Wisconsin history ?

Who wants to read about cheese? lol

Okay, it's been awhile, I know. Here is a link to primary source materials about Texas history on the internet:
http://home.austin.rr.com/rgriffin/texhisdocs.html

This site presents a thorough, but relatively concise timeline:
http://www.lsjunction.com/events/events.htm

Yes, there's a link in there to an abolitionist tract making many of the same accusations about the Texas revolution being about slavery, but it is one of many, and the only one I found that mentions slavery used as a justification for war. I looked for, but could not find my old textbook that contained slave population statistics in Texas at the time. I just remember being taught and reading that Texas had far fewer slaves per capita than other states in the Confederacy, and so I seriously doubt that it had to do with the reasons for the revolution, though the existence of slaves did hinder and delay annexation by the U.S.

The reasons for the revolution were similar to those of the American Revolution. There were significant cultural differences between the Mexicans and the Anglo settlers in Texas, and Mexico, and in particular Santa Anna were becoming more and more oppressive as they tried to rein in control over the large colony far removed from the capitol, and the people developing their seperate economy there. All new Texas immigrants were made to swear that they were Catholic, were given large tracts of land but had almost zero say in their government. Stephen F. Austin, one of the first and most influential "empresarios" in Texas was jailed in Mexico City when he tried to speak out against the Mexican government "reforms." When Santa Anna changed the boundaries of the Mexican states and made all of Texas part of Coauhiba, with a state capitol south of the Rio Grande, it was like the stamp act in Boston.

Why is there Texas pride about this history? I know of no other single state that has defeated another nation in war, much less become a nation itself. Though there were early talks between Houston and his friend, Andrew Jackson, then the president about annexation from the beginning, when it became clear that the time was not right, Texas governed itself. I've seen the plaque in London on the site of the Republic of Texas embassy to Great Britain. There were also embassies in France and Belgium, I think. Sam Houston, who had lived for years with Indians in the East, had very good relations with the Texas Indians. Mirabeau B. Lamar, the 2nd president, while he brought war with the Indians, established a public school system more advanced than that of the U.S. during that time. Yeah, Texans think their star is bigger than those of other states, but there are good reasons for it.

P.S. Because I brought it up, here is a brief history of Wisconsin:

Quote:

Wisconsin was first inhabited by varied Indian tribes in the 17th century. They included the Algonquian-speaking Menominee, Kickapoo, Miami, the Siouan-speaking Winnebago, Dakota (or Sioux) and Iowa. In the mid-1600's other groups entered Wisconsin, including the Fox, Sac, Potawatomi and Ojibewa (Chippewa).

The Wisconsin region was first explored for France by Jean Nicolet, who landed at Green Bay in 1634. Jean Nicolet, a native of France, was the first explorer to reach the area while searching for the Northwest Passage to China in 1634. The French lost possession of Wisconsin and all of it's territories east of the Mississippi to Great Britain during the French and Indian War.

In 1660 a French trading post and Roman Catholic mission were established near present-day Ashland.

Great Britain obtained the region in settlement of the French and Indian Wars in 1763; British possession of Wisconsin ended in 1783, when Britain signed the treaty ending the American Revolution. Because the U.S. government had no effective control over Wisconsin, it remained under unofficial British control. Fur trade continued as the foundation of Wisconsin's economy.

The first wave of American settlers in Wisconsin came in the 1820's as a result of a lead mining boom in northwest Illinois and southwest Wisconsin. The movement of white settlers into the Midwest caused intense conflict when the federal government and settlers attempted to move Native Americans from their lands. Federal policies included uprooting entire tribes and forcing them to resettle west of the Mississippi. When the Sac people tried to return in 1832, the Black Hawk war started ending in the Bad Axe Massacre with less than 1000 Native Americans surviving. Other Wisconsin tribes either left the area, or negotiated reservation lands.

The region was successively governed as part of the territories of Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan between 1800 and 1836, when it became a separate territory.

No longer having opposition from the Native Americans, a second wave of settlers came to Wisconsin and in 1836 the Wisconsin Territory was organized. Around the 1840's a third wave of settlers came to Wisconsin, attracted by good farmland. At that time the state became the nation's leading wheat producer. On May 29, 1848, Wisconsin was admitted to the Union as the 30th state.

fascinating stuff.

Why are people patriotic?

Could it be... perhaps... because they are indoctrinated from birth?