The Bad, the Ugly, and the Good, Part I

Gerald Martin, American Renaissance, September 6, 2013

AlamoToday
The battle over Texas history.

He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future.

-George Orwell

Of all the states, Texas has the most politically incorrect past. Unique in American history, it was a sovereign nation for nine years after winning independence from Mexico in a brief but bloody revolt. During its years of independence, the Republic of Texas had to fight for its life against two Mexican invasions seeking to re-conquer lost territory, as well as countless Indian attacks.

Even after it entered the Union in 1845, Texas continued to fight a two-front war against a revenge-minded Mexico and a formidable array of Indian nations—above all, the dreaded Comanche—in order to secure its territory for white settlement. In the midst of this conflict, Texas joined the Confederacy and suffered the added traumas of war, defeat and Reconstruction. And, as thousands of fighting men headed east to serve in Southern armies, the western frontier collapsed under Indian attack. Comanche and Kiowa raiders took advantage of the near-absence of men to launch a final, especially vicious war that did not end until 1875. The Mexican border—as present headlines demonstrate—has never ceased to be a source of disorder, crime, and violence.

All these events are part of an incredibly violent, conflict-ridden past that certainly contradicts notions that “diversity makes us stronger” and that equality is the ultimate good. Indeed, the history of the Lone Star State can be seen as the story of how a very non-diverse and racially conscious group of white people fought and defeated diverse groups of non-whites to take possession of a vast territory and create a successful society. This history—bloody, dramatic, tragic, and glorious—has been a source of great pride for the people of Texas.

But not anymore. Academic historians are using Orwell’s dictum about controlling the past to control the future as they rewrite Texas history. In the new version, instead of the struggle by white pioneers to forge a viable society in what had previously been a failed province of Spain and a failed state of Mexico—whose real rulers were the plains Indians—we have an aggressive Anglo invasion against progressive, multiracial communities. Instead of brave frontiersmen and -women, we have racist slave-owners and swindling land pirates, eager to exploit blacks, steal land from Mexicans, and commit genocide against Indians. One of the leading revisionist historians is Gary Anderson. In the introduction to his 2005 work, The Conquest of Texas, he sums up the “modern” view:

. . . rather than a fight for liberty, the 1835 Anglo-led revolution was a poorly conceived southern land grab that nearly failed. Texans had an overwhelming desire to expand slavery (an institution that Mexico had outlawed) and to use slave labor to increase profits made from cotton production. [All previous history of Texas] . . . is exculpatory history, at least in terms of Anglo guilt.

There is a definite pecking order in this new history based on every non-white group’s level of victimization by Anglos. (In Texas history, “Anglo” means any American-born white person.) Blacks, the champions of oppression everywhere else, lose pride of place to others. First come the Indians. Once known as Native Americans in PC-speak, this term has in turn become politically incorrect because “American” comes from Amerigo Vespucci, a white explorer. Trendier academics favor “the indigenous,” “First Peoples,” or “First Nations.”

Fall of the Alamo

Fall of the Alamo by Robert Jenkins Onderdonk (1903).

A close second are Mexicans. Spaniards, though held in low regard for oppressing Indians, are morally superior to Anglo-Americans. The fact that Mexicans continued brutal Spanish policies against los Indios is seldom held against them. Indeed, as mestizo people, Mexicans are seen by some academic historians as morally superior even to Indians. Miscegenation is ennobling.

Anglos rank at the bottom, of course, but some Anglos rank higher than others. Lowest are the people who helped push back the Indian frontier: the settlers and pioneers of 19th century Texas. In fact, some modern historians avoid terms such as “pioneers,” “settlers” and “frontiersmen”—at least for white people. When I visited the museum at an old cavalry fort in west Texas a few years ago, I noticed that the only term for Anglos, including the first people to farm or ranch in the area, was “immigrants.” Since Indians and sometimes Mexicans were there first, that is the only allowed term. It is also supposed to remind us that we are no different from today’s “immigrants,” whom we presume to call “illegal.”

The German–Texans who settled the hill country west of Austin are somewhat higher on the scale, because they opposed slavery and the Confederacy. Today, some whites try to raise their status by reinventing themselves. The people of Galveston, a coastal city on the Gulf of Mexico, have tried to repudiate the bad old days when they were a slave port by claiming to be the “Ellis Island of Texas,” the gateway for ethnically diverse immigrants from around the world.

Of course, many Anglos can never be rehabilitated. Near the bottom of the pecking order are the Texas Rangers. Many Texans still see them, after the men who defended the Alamo, as the state’s most revered figures in popular culture, but among academic historians the Rangers rank just slightly higher than the Ku Klux Klan. Like the Klan, they are considered a terrorist organization guilty of countless crimes against helpless Mexicans and Indians. In the last decade, at least three scholarly books have denounced the Rangers as perhaps the greatest villains in Texas history.

Texas Rangers George Black and J.M. Britton served in the Frontier Battalion after the Civil War.

Texas Rangers George Black and J.M. Britton served in the Frontier Battalion after the Civil War.

As the new history gets established, the writers of the old history must be discredited. One target of the PC historians is Theodore R. Fehrenbach (usually known as T.R. Fehrenbach). His Lone Star, written in the 1960s, is still the finest and most popular history of the state, and was made into a PBS television series in the 1980s. Although he was a typical mid-20th century liberal on race, Mr. Fehrenbach is now a “racist” because of his graphic descriptions of the torture and mutilation that Comanches and Kiowas often inflicted on white captives—though he was equally unsparing in describing atrocities whites committed against Indians. He is also scorned for celebrating the courage, toughness, and fighting prowess of the Anglo-Celt pioneers. In the age of PC, Anglo-Celts must have no admirable qualities.

There is another reason professional historians dislike Mr. Fehrenbach: He isn’t one of them. Like Shelby Foote, the Mississippi author of the best modern history of the Civil War, Mr. Fehrenbach is a journalist, not a PhD-holding academic. His books are loved, and regularly outsell anything produced by the professors, which they resent. Gary Anderson, quoted above, says Mr. Fehrenbach has been “long consigned to the unused bookshelf by most academic historians.” This is hardly true. In his award-winning 2008 study, Comanche Empire, Pekka Hamalainen found it necessary to condemn Fehrenbach’s attitude towards Indians but still included 13 citations to his work.

The politically correct view dominates university classrooms and academic publishing, but it is not popular among Texans. One reason is that Mr. Fehrenbach and, more recently, S. C. Gwynne do a better job of looking at the past with common sense and explaining it in plain English. The academic historians not only push an academic agenda; they can get tangled up in their own esoteric and pretentious jargon.

At the same time, Texans refuse to give up their view of Texas Rangers as the great heroes—not the villains—of Texas history, just as Mississippians and Alabamans defend the Confederate battle flag and the honor the Confederate soldier. One reason for the continued popularity of the Rangers has been Larry McMurtry’s fictional Lonesome Dove series about rangers, which was made into popular TV movies. Ironically, Mr. McMurtry is a typical liberal—though hardly an academic historian.

A look at a few recent works and how they were received will help us understand the current state of Texas history and why political correctness is sometimes a hard sell. From a race-realist point of view, they run the gamut from the ugly and the bad to the good.

The ugly

Phillip Thomas Tucker, Exodus from the Alamo: The Anatomy of the Last Stand Myth, Casemate Publishers, 2010, $21.75 (hardcover), 404 pp.

. . . scared young men far from home attempting to surrender in vain, and scores of escapees running for their lives on the open prairie, only to be cut down by the sabres and lances of Mexican cavalrymen outside the Alamo.

-Phillip Thomas Tucker

Exodus

The battle of the Alamo is the most famous, the most symbolic, and the most written about event in Texas history. The heroism of the defenders and their deaths, ordered by Mexican dictator Santa Anna, electrified the American people and inspired renewed resistance to the advancing Mexican army. This led to the defeat and capture of Santa Anna at San Jacinto, ensuring Texas independence. The Alamo became a revered symbol of sacrifice in the cause of freedom and of the fighting spirit for which Texas is still known. It has been the subject of thousands of articles and books in the 177 years since the battle took place on March 6, 1836.

Needless to say, any event that celebrates and legitimizes Anglo resistance to Mexican rule must be debunked. That is what Phillip Thomas Tucker tries to do in his 2010 account of the battle, Exodus from the Alamo: The Anatomy of the Last Stand Myth. According to Dr. Tucker, everything we have been taught about the Alamo is a myth. The belief that there was a last stand, that the defenders died heroically at their posts, that they killed or wounded hundreds of Mexican attackers—it’s all “based on fantasy.” “If all the defenders were killed,” he asks, “how do we really know what happened at the Alamo?” A good question. We really don’t know that much, but Dr. Tucker, who specializes in military history, does:

Rather than mounting a climactic last stand with a well-organized, tenacious defense, a totally unprepared Alamo garrison was caught . . . completely by surprise. The garrison consisted of citizen-soldiers with little of the military training or experience of their well-honed Mexican opponents, whose attack left them so stunned that they never     recovered from the shock. . . . More of a rout and a slaughter than a battle in the traditional sense, the struggle for the Alamo lasted only about twenty minutes, making it one of the shortest armed clashes in American military history for an iconic battle.

Dr. Tucker goes on to claim that most of the Alamo garrison, terrified of the courageous Mexicans, abandoned their posts and were cut down by Mexican cavalry as they fled outside the Alamo’s walls. He says the Mexicans lost only 70 killed and 200 wounded, with many—perhaps most—of the casualties due to “friendly fire” during the pre-dawn darkness in which the attack took place. The myth or heroic resistance arose because:

. . . American and Texas nationalist historians have casually dismissed the truth of the Alamo because the legend has always shored up a sense of Anglo-Celtic superiority over a mixed-race people . . .

This is the larger context of the myth:

. . . latecoming interlopers [whites], primarily from the United States, of the Mexican province of Texas were transformed into the righteous defenders of a white bastion of Anglo-Celtic civilization, while Mexican troops, who were defending their republic’s home soil . . . were tarnished as godless invaders and barbarians. This mythical Alamo justified a sense of moral supremacy and righteous entitlement to Texas at the expense of the Indian, Tejano, and Mexican people. The mythical last stand, in which a relatively small band of white heroes defy the mixed-race horde, demonstrated the moral, racial, and cultural superiority over Latino brown people needed to justify and rationalize one of the greatest land-grabs in American history. [Note the recurrence of the idea of a land grab.]

There is no doubt that the Texans’ victory in their war of independence against Mexico gave them a sense of superiority over Mexicans. And why not? Twenty-five thousand Anglo settlers with no real army defeated a nation of 7,000,000 people that had a professional, battle-tested military force that included many European officers. This humiliation has always been a source of anger and frustration to Mexicans—and now to some American historians.

SantaAnna

General Santa Anna was part of the Criollo class–a high caste of European descendants born in the Americas.

But what of Tucker’s account of the battle? The few Texan non-combatants who survived, such as the slave of Alamo commander William B. Travis, left contradictory accounts. The Mexican accounts also contradict each other. One thing is clear: Dr. Tucker’s use of the available evidence is highly selective and imaginative.

Veteran Alamo scholars Gary Edmonson and Thomas Ricks Turner, who have studied the subject for decades and rely heavily on Mexican sources, believe that although Santa Anna did achieve surprise, the Texan garrison quickly recovered and put up fierce resistance. The battle lasted much longer than the 20 minutes counted by Dr. Tucker–one hour, possibly longer. There were probably two groups, numbering up to 60 men out of roughly 200 in the Alamo garrison, who tried to break out, but were cut down by Mexican cavalry.

The reports of the chief Mexican army surgeon after the battle, though incomplete, indicate roughly 200 dead and between 300 and 400 wounded, or at least 25 percent of the 2,000-man assault force. Even if over half were from friendly fire—as Dr. Tucker suggests, extrapolating with gusto from ambiguous sources—the defenders still gave a good account of themselves.

Although Dr. Tucker seems certain about every other detail of the Alamo battle, he is vague about the fate of its most famous defender: Davy Crockett. He can’t decide whether Crockett was killed inside the walls, or attempted to escape and was cut down outside, or—as recounted in the diary of Jose de la Pena, a Mexican officer and eyewitness—was captured alive and then executed on Santa Anna’s orders. (Despite a recent History Channel program suggesting that Crockett’s surrender is a new and controversial issue, most students of the Alamo have believed for decades that he was captured along with several other defenders and executed shortly after the fighting.)

Davy Crockett by William Henry Huddle, 1889.

Davy Crockett by William Henry Huddle, 1889.

Dr. Tucker’s research is too inept to be seen as a serious attempt to provide an authentic description of the battle. His real purpose seems to be to delegitimize the Anglo presence in Texas by trying to downplay the greatest symbol of the Anglo heroism and sacrifice that created Texas.

He is also openly hostile to the defenders. Tennessean Micajah Autry, for example, was well educated and a talented artist, but “his drawings failed to depict the slaves his family owned,” and whose labor, we are told, made his expensive education possible. Another defender was “the pampered son of a wealthy Philadelphia family who sought more wealth and glory in Texas.”

Instead of understanding the deadly risk they were running in rebelling against Mexican authority, the clueless and always land-hungry Anglos “acted as if they were on a lark, after which they would collect the land promised them.” But a few days after confronting Santa Anna’s army of well-trained professionals, “all the confidence, braggadocio, and sense of racial and cultural superiority had long evaporated from the once jaunty Alamo defenders.” Dr. Tucker repeatedly declares that the Anglo defenders’ “ugly racial stereotypes of the Mexican character lulled them into a false sense of complacency,” which led to their defeat.

Exodus from the Alamo has not been a success. Sales were weak, and the academic reception was tepid—perhaps because the book’s assertions are such obvious nonsense. Tellingly, the back cover, which is usually reserved for laudatory blurbs, is blank. The few perfunctory reviews in scholarly journals such as Southwestern Historical Quarterly noted, with mild disdain, Dr. Tucker’s claim that everyone who wrote about the Alamo before him was wrong, but they are silent on his portrayal of the Alamo garrison as incompetent cowards. At Amazon, however, the book’s reception has been hot and hostile. Lay readers are not shy about criticizing the book, often in scorching detail.

Dr. Tucker believes a sentence can never have too many adjectives and adverbs. The resulting tangle of prose almost requires a machete. This contributes to my single-adjective summation of this book: ugly.

Mr. Martin is a 6th-generation Texan, ex-Army officer, school teacher, and backpacker, now looking for his third career. Part II of “The Bad, the Ugly, and the Good” will appear next week.

Topics: , , , , , ,

Share This

Gerald Martin
Mr. Martin is a 6th-generation Texan, ex-Army officer, school teacher, and backpacker, now looking for his third career.
We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • http://countenance.wordpress.com/ Question Diversity

    The German–Texans who settled the hill country west of Austin are
    somewhat higher on the scale, because they opposed slavery and the
    Confederacy. Today, some whites try to raise their status by reinventing
    themselves.

    Except most German-Texans, like most German-Dixierons, fought for the Confederacy. And while most German-Texas, again like most German-Dixierons opposed slavery, they opposed slavery for a politically incorrect reason, or it would be un-PC by today’s standards.

    The largest and most prosperous cotton plantation in Texas antebellum was German-Texan owned and used black slaves.

    • NeanderthalDNA

      Another major early ethnic group of the South, especially the Atlantic states, was the French. In South Carolina large numbers of Huguenots settled and quickly mixed with the Anglo-Celts and “Dutch”.

      • jane johnson

        Near my home in N. Florida, we have Huguenot Park and the Jean Ribault monument.

        • NeanderthalDNA

          North Florida – still the South, lol…

          • jane johnson

            Absolutely. Some here consider it South Georgia.

      • Sick of it

        They were in Louisiana before anyone else had even taken a look at America, other than the Spanish :p

        Catholic French of course.

        • NeanderthalDNA

          Oh yeah – those guys, of course. Heck – they were here before the Huguenots I believe.

      • NorthSea

        Lots of my Cajun cousins fought in Louisiana units in the Civil War. Cajun Confederates!

        • NeanderthalDNA

          I once had a good French Canadian pal who really liked the South. Every time he’d try to put on the local accent he sounded like a Cajun. Close enough, lol…

          • jane johnson

            Some have kind of a Brooklyn thing going on, too. Accent wise,in Louisiana, I mean.

          • NorthSea

            I knew guys in the Navy from New Orleans who sounded just like they were from Brooklyn.

          • jane johnson

            Right, my dad was a Navy guy, from Brooklyn, and the accent thing was like an instant icebreaker. We’re of Italian descent, and Dad assumed that there were lots of wiseguys in N.O. when he was there. Of course, he was right, but the accent had nothing to do with it.

          • NeanderthalDNA

            The Eyetalians, lol, found the Big Easy pretty early. Funny Italian story…

            Apparently at one point during the Civil War, when we crazy Southern peckerwoods were schooling the poor bluebellies on the battlefield as a result of TERRIBLE Union political generalship, Lincoln was in touch with the Italian revolutionary, Garibaldi. They considered briefly making him a general in the Union army and pitting him against R.E. Lee. THAT would have been an interesting match up.

            In the end they all decided it would look bad for the Union to have to import general talent and decided not. (Also round the time when a few bright lights began to shine amongst the junior corps of West Point trained yankee generals).

            You Eye-talians have been drifting down here for quite some time, especially after WW2 when you introduced that insidiously delicious pizza stuff. First pizza in the south was served by early Italian refugees from the North to the locals as well as the Guidos serving in the military in Dixie.

            Got a good friend who’s a southerner with some Italian. Big mouth, bigger heart, lol.

          • mobilebay

            Ms. Johnson, thank you for bringing that out. I’ve always thought the accents of Louisiana and Brooklyn had a common sound. Wonder why?

          • NorthSea

            Cajuns were originally French-Canadians, Acadians actually, not Quebecois. Acadians are from the east coast, Canadian version of Yankees, but French. They were driven from their homes in Acadia by the British during the French and Indian War in 1755, I had several cousins die during the Le Grand Derangement, as its known. Many wound up in Louisiana. As we say, “laissez les bon temps roulent!”

          • NeanderthalDNA

            One of my Scottish ancestors had to flee there right after the Revolutionary War for reasons…we sneaked back in after the tar-and-feathers thing died down…

            But that was after the Acadians became the Cajuns.

            My MAIN Frenchy connection is from some French Huguenots who managed to remain in France until the French Revolution. Made it out with their heads, experimented with local grapes and hybrids to make some nice wine (a friend has reproduced it – sweet but not overpoweringly so, nice aftertaste). Actually I have a lot of French connections in my genetics, often in recombinant ways.

            My Swedish is tainted with frog blood, Marshall Bernadotte’s boys. My English is Norman, which is really more Scandinavian – Vikings on horse speaking French. Another local strain of Southern Coastal Anglo-Gallo-Celt or two here and there. Charleston, SC, is a beautiful example of early French influence on the coastal colonial history, as is Savannah, Ga.

          • NorthSea

            I didn’t know about the French connection with the Southeast, outside of Florida. I was stationed in Savannah 1989-92, beautiful city, unbearable summers. You mean your ancestor was a Loyalist? Yeah, I do genealogy and genetics, and am astounded at the connections. One of my Frenchy cousins was in Louis XVI’s forces and fled to Germany when the Revolution started. I got a passel of French cousins who were officers in the British army fighting Napoleon. French-Canadians tended to be Catholic/Royalist in their sympathies. Like me, lol.

          • Sick of it

            One of my lines is Anglo-French. I have no idea when they arrived in England or really anything about them. Haven’t found any information on them. Pretty sure my ancestors from that family were in America prior to the French Revolution regardless.

          • NorthSea

            That’s interesting about the French line in America. I don’t think there has really been an influx of French immigrants to the States. Most went to Canada, and that flow stopped with the Anglo/French treaty of 1763. Several Canadian lines of French emigrated to the States, but mainly in the 19th Century, and to New England and to Michigan. The writer Jack Kerouac was of French-Canadian descent in Massachusetts. I have a French-Canadian friend from Rhode Island who grew up speaking French in her household.

          • Sick of it

            Cajuns (Acadians) in South Louisiana grow up speaking Cajun French. I have a friend who grew up down there and spoke it as well, despite being a non-Cajun. I learned French in school but had few chances to use it so I’ve forgotten most of it (but I can still translate words a bit when reading French books).

          • NorthSea

            C’est la plus belle langue.

          • Sick of it

            The Normans did intermarry with local French people prior to the invasion of England. They were there several generations. I also have at least one Norman conqueror in my own background.

          • NorthSea

            Most of the Norman warriors with William were actually Frankish, Breton, and other groups within “France”. Few Normans were of Scandinavian descent, mainly the warrior/aristocrats. You’re right about the intermarriage in Normandy; by the time of the Invasion, the Vikings who had settled in Normandy were thoroughly “Frenchified”.

          • Sick of it

            Gonna be honest, I’ve never looked into the ethnic background of Norman peasants, but considering that Normandy itself was taken over by warriors and not a complete tribe of people, you are probably correct. My ancestors were noblemen (in that line anyway).

          • NorthSea

            From what I’ve read in various books and sites, most of the population of what became Normandy were Gallo-Romans, with an overlay of Frankish lords who intermarried with the Norsemen who settled. Most of the Norse settlements were along the coast of the Channel. There were also some Norse settlements in Brittany.

          • NorthSea

            Do you know his name?

          • Sick of it

            Lothar, if I recall correctly. A cousin of mine looked into it.

          • Formerly_Known_as_Whiteplight

            I am Quebecois and can trace my line there to 1750 and from there to Normandy to the 11th century and the Battle of Hastings. I recently emailed with the Quebec Nationalist group. They are making some progress there. I think it’s because they already had some traction due to the already existent separatist movement there.

    • Jerrybear

      Did they oppose it on the grounds that blacks shouldn’t be in a white nation in the first place? That I agree with wholeheartedly. This country would be a far better place if we never imported black slaves to begin with.

      • http://countenance.wordpress.com/ Question Diversity

        That, and they thought that blacks tended to be lazy and that their labor was inefficient, and even though it was “free,” (so it seemed in the short term), you got what you paid for.

    • NorthSea

      Sounds like this book is receiving its well-deserved fate.

    • Zimriel

      As in… other places, the Germans aren’t the most racist, just the most efficient . . .

  • Spartacus

    “In the new version, instead of the struggle by white pioneers to forge a
    viable society in what had previously been a failed province of Spain
    and a failed state of Mexico—whose real rulers were the plains
    Indians—we have an aggressive Anglo invasion against progressive,
    multiracial communities. Instead of brave frontiersmen and -women, we
    have racist slave-owners and swindling land pirates, eager to exploit
    blacks, steal land from Mexicans, and commit genocide against Indians.”

    ———————————————————————————————————————

    For the millionth time – HOME-SCHOOL !

    • Sick of it

      And read older books. They tend to have more fact and less opinion as well.

      • JohnEngelman

        History books that attempt to be objective are usually less popular than those that idealize the ancestors of their readers.

        • Sick of it

          Maybe it’s very 18th century of me, but I like reading about the scandals too.

        • Spartacus

          After reading the excerpts from Phillip Thomas Tucker’s book – you still call it “objective” ? Really ? You’re not very smart, are you ?

          • JohnEngelman

            I do not think Phillip Thomas Tucker’s history is objective, but I do not think the history books I studied in K-12 were objective either.

            What I do believe is that the complex truth of the Mexican War is that it was an unprovoked war of aggression against a weak country, and that we have administered the land we conquered better than that weak country could have.

            I would be interested in learning more about the Battle of the Alamo. I suspect the American side was less heroic and noble than portrayed by Walt Disney’s “Davy Crockett.”

          • NorthSea

            Yeah, but that coonskin cap and Georgie Russell rock!

          • NeanderthalDNA

            “it was an unprovoked war of aggression against a weak country, ”

            I disagree. In RETROSPECT, you are correct – Mexico was weak and we were strong, but…at the time I don’t think we saw it that way so much. Perhaps suspected as much…not saying we were saints but despite the Texans heroic success (I consider the N. Vietnamese struggle heroic, by the way and no offense to Mekong Delta and his) Mexico had an apparently formidable military and would be fighting on home turf. I forget the specifics but they had a good number of artillery pieces, large cavalry…

            I think it makes a moral difference. I think we thought our opponent was stronger than he was, thence the war was a more general jockeying squabble among neighboring powers each attempting to establish hegemony.

            There was an illustrious Irish Catholic unit of ex-gringos that fought on the Mexican side, by the way, ha ha.

          • IanJMacDonald

            Unprovoked? Mexico refused to honor the peace terms signed by General Santa Ana at San Jacinto. Instead of accepting the Texas secession as reality, Mexico doubled down on a bad bet – and lost. It was entirely predictable that their repeated incursions into Texas and occupation of Texas land would drive Texas into the arms of the United States.

            Recommended reading: A Country of Vast Designs: James K. Polk, The Mexican War, and the Conquest of a Continent by Robert W. Merry (Simon & Schuster: 2009).

        • NorthSea

          “…commit genocide against Indians.” is your standard of objectivity? Our ancestors’ bravery doesn’t NEED idealization.

          • JohnEngelman

            The Mexicans and the Indians never had a chance.

          • NorthSea

            The Comanches were defeated, culture destroyed, and were put on Fort Sill Reservation to learn to farm. That’s not genocide.

          • JohnEngelman

            That’s not genocide.

            - NorthSea

            The immigration of Hispanics, Orientals, and Jews is not genocide.

          • NorthSea

            I don’t know who you’re responding to regarding the immigration of Hispanics, Orientals and Jews not being genocide, but I never claimed it was.

          • JohnEngelman

            I am not responding to you. Nevertheless, other posters here do claim that the immigration of Jews and non whites is genocide against whites.

          • Dave4088

            It is.

          • JohnEngelman

            No it’s not. It just requires white Gentiles to study harder and work harder.

          • Garrett Brown

            “I am not responding to you”

            Yes, you did actually. You’re constantly clueless, it’s sad.

          • JohnEngelman

            I should have said, “I was not responding to you.”

          • Sick of it

            Filling our countries with foreigners…sending them to have relations with our people. Yeah, that is a form of genocide.

          • NorthSea

            The Comanches were interlopers themselves. They migrated to Texas from the Rocky Mountain region, and drove the Apaches to New Mexico sometime in the 1700s. We were simply the latest and most efficient invaders. History Happens.

          • JohnEngelman

            What you say is true.

          • NeanderthalDNA

            Define “Hispanics” and level of immigration and I might agree with you…

          • François

            Are you saying that the immigration of some other groups might be “genocide”? What are you saying?

          • Sick of it

            The Commanche were routinely committing genocide against white settlers…and anyone else who wasn’t Commanche. They are known for being one of the nastiest tribes in this country, more akin to the Meso-American Indians in their absolute savagery.

          • NorthSea

            In “Empire of the Summer Moon”, S. C. Gwynne states that Comanches were primitive even by Native standards. They had virtually no organization, and unlike most Plains tribes, did not practice the Sun Dance. They seemed to have no ritualistic events that drew the tribe together periodically, unlike the Lakota or Cheyenne.

  • Oil Can Harry

    Prediction: the p.c. brigades will soon mount a crusade for the owners of the Texas Rangers to change the “racist” name of their baseball team.

    • MikeofAges

      Don’t talk so loud. They might hear you.

  • JohnEngelman

    If the Mexicans had won the Mexican War and conquered states in the United States, their descendants would still be trying to immigrate illegally into what their ancestors had not conquered.

    • MikeofAges

      Or if the Reconquista succeeds.

  • Andy

    Hey Santa Anna!
    We’re killing your soldiers below
    So that men wherever they go
    Will remember the Alamo!

  • Zimriel

    I read Hamalainen’s book. It isn’t exactly PC itself. It documents with excruciating detail exactly how brutal the Comanche were (more so in the Taos / Santa Fe area – back then, that’s where all the money was). It even compares the Comanche with the Mongols.

    I don’t know why he condemned Fehrenbach, except that others must have expected it of him.

    • NorthSea

      Another good one is “Empire of The Summer Moon” by S. C. Gwynne. A biography of Quanah Parker, its detailed description of Comanche culture is fascinating and horrifying.

      • Sick of it

        Nice, I’ll see if I can find it.

        • NorthSea

          It’s a good read. Cynthia Parker was Quanah’s mother, she was captured by the Comanches and raised by them. Not treated too awfully, by Comanche standards. The author’s account of the attack on the Parker family when Cynthia was taken is nauseating. The Comanches seemed to be recreationally cruel.

  • JohnEngelman

    The Mexican War was certainly in America’s national interest. It was just as certainly a land grab against a weaker country that had little chance of winning.

    The Comanche and Kiowa, like most American Indians, tortured prisoners of war to death. They were also fighting against genocide and race displacement.

    • NeanderthalDNA

      Yeah…does our cause no good to lie. Truth is Truth. Trying to “whitewash” history is no more palatable to me than a “blackwashing”.

      History is important even if that was then and this is now.

    • NorthSea

      Ulysses Grant was a young lieutenant in that war, recently out of West Point. He said in his diary it was the most unjust war America ever fought.

    • Robbie M.

      The Commanche tortured all their captives, including young children, who were certainly not prisoners of war. They weren’t torturing and killing in response to their “race replacement”; they tortured and killed because they were savages. Other Indian tribes were victims of their ministrations as well.

      • NorthSea

        The Comanches’ area of operations was called Comancheria, and they patrolled it with ruthless efficiency. Gwynne says in “Empire of the Summer Moon” that a group of Mexican sheepherders sitting around a campfire in New Mexico were not safe from attack from Comanches in Oklahoma. They would ride night and day and attack immediately. Breathtaking feats of warriorship, and utterly savage.

  • JohnEngelman

    It is difficult to teach history objectively. It is worth the effort. Being raised in the aftermath of the Second World War I was taught to believe that every war the United States fought was as morally unambiguous as World War II. The history texts I read as a child and teenager taught me that every war the United States ever fought was forced on us by aggressors.

    The instruction was effective on the vast majority of Americans. That is why the electorate supported the War in Vietnam for ten years. The War in Vietnam was an expensive, losing war, fought against a tough resourceful enemy, in which the rewards of victory and the penalties of defeat were imperceptible. Vietnam was unimportant to America’s economy and security. In his memoirs President Eisenhower estimated that as many as 80 percent of the Vietnamese supported Ho Chi Minh.

  • Sick of it

    It was not malaria which led to the use of black slaves, but rather smallpox. Our first slaves on American plantations (in the Caribbean) were Indians. They died out due to exposure to smallpox and were replaced with black Africans, who could cope better with the disease. This was started by the Spanish. Of course, they continued to use Indian labor in other parts of Latin America.

    • fuzzypook

      The Indians were hard to control. They ran off a lot. They were in their homeland after all. Bantus were much easier to control and where were they going to go if they ran off?

      • Sick of it

        Quite a few Maroon communities were formed by escaped black slaves over the years. Many Indian tribes harbored them. In fact, there was a rather large Maroon community on Seminole territory in Florida before Andrew Jackson took down the Seminoles.

  • NorthSea

    Crazy George Custer said that he could envision making an Indian chief the Pope before giving a black the vote.

  • NorthSea

    The immigrants up till the 60′s were primarily Germano-Anglo-Celtic-Italo, of similar ethnic stock. The ones flooding in now are primarily Third World, coming from dysfunctional countries and bringing with them their attendant cultural abnormalities.

  • John R

    Well, I can’t claim to know exactly what happened at the Alamo. Yes, I’ll confess, that most of what I know about that battle comes from watching that wonderful and exciting John Wayne movie. But, if this new book has any truth to it, then, explain this: If the “Texicans” were so weak, unorganized, stupid, and cowardly, then how did they-numbering around 25,000, defeat a Mexican nation, of seven million, with a large, experienced, army? Additionally the Mexicans received vast quantities of weapons and training, from Europeans. So the Texicans didn’t even enjoy a technological superiority. Yet they won. Oh, I forgot, the author would probably say that the Tuskegee airmen supported them, or something. (In the 1830′s!)

    • NorthSea

      The Texicans must have been diverse, because that’s all the strength you need.

  • JohnEngelman

    The people of the European countries have come to acknowledge that their history includes acts that were not right and just. The American people are just beginning to acknowledge that.

    • Fair Dingum

      I note, however, it seems to be only white people who try to be honest about the fact that their ancestors were not a race of angels and saints.

  • NorthSea

    IF whites can unite. We’re not the most cohesive bunch, at first, anyway. Continuing domestic assault can always change that.

  • Randall Ward

    My wife’s family member died in the Alamo, (Menefee) and if he was like the rest of the Menefee clan, he was a hardheaded young man that would not retreat.

  • IstvanIN

    The basic history taught in grade and high school should put a positive spin on the history of the native people (Americans should be taught a positive version of American history). I prefer the Japanese way over the German way, the Japanese support themselves while the Germans denounce themselves. In one hundred years which people will still exist?

    Let scholars and adults fight over who was right and who was wrong, children should be taught to think well of their own people.

    • JohnEngelman

      Children should be taught the truth about their own people. If that truth is admirable, they will think well of their own people.

      • jane johnson

        So what about children of African descent? Explains a lot about mendacity in public education.

        • IstvanIN

          They were naked natives running around the jungle for the most part. I suppose you could teach them about Booker T. Washington, but they aren’t into actually useful heroes.

          • jane johnson

            I do wonder sometimes if they had been left alone, without any interference from the great White oppressors, if Africans would have survived or become extinct.

          • NorthSea

            They were still being taken captive by Arabs and sold as slaves.

          • IstvanIN

            They would have survived in much smaller numbers consistent with their abilities and environment.

          • JohnEngelman

            They would have survived, but their numbers would be much lower.

          • JohnEngelman

            Most of them covered their genitals.

          • IstvanIN

            Well, thank goodness for that.

          • gemjunior

            You said it. I don’t think that too many people could handle seeing the Labia Apron of the Hottentot Venus. At first I laughed my head off hearing about that but after I looked it up and saw one I was no longer laughing. I must now whip myself and write down “I am an evil racist” 100 times.

          • NorthSea

            You don’t need to whip yourself, plenty of whites will be happy to do it for you.

        • JohnEngelman

          Efforts to teach black history almost always embellish the achievements of blacks, while downplaying their shortcomings, and blaming those shortcomings on whites.

      • IstvanIN

        Unless they are Asiatics and Jews, then they must be exalted.

        • JohnEngelman

          Children in Japan should be taught the truth about Japanese aggression and cruelty during the Second World War. They should also be taught about their high IQ’s, low crime rates, and the technological and economic achievements of Japan.

          For Jews the truth is exalting.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/David-Asplund/1212542247 David Asplund

            Sorry John this clearly is not true, if the truth is exalting why are there so many holocaust denial laws in Europe? After all to deny the fact that the sun rises in the East you would not need laws that could imprison you, cause you to lose your job or become a social pariah, yet to question any established fact of the holocaust in Europe will do those things to you.

          • JohnEngelman

            The laws were probably passed because people got tired of all that nonsense. I do not think that way. I believe that truth emerges from the competition of facts and ideas. Most Americans agree wit me, so we do not have any of those foolish laws over here.

            I used to have a Jewish dentist who survived a Nazi concentration camp, although his family was killed there. A colleague of my father experienced the same fate. When I was a teenager I knew a man who had helped to liberate a camp as an American soldier.

            Those who deny the Holocaust make many factual assertions that are impossible to prove or disprove without extensive research. If the Holocaust did not happen it needs to be the case that everyone who survived a Nazi concentration damp and everyone who liberated one conspired to lie about what was happening in it.

          • IstvanIN

            Killed, or died when the war was coming to an end and the supply rail lines were bombed by the allies? There is a huge difference.

            Plus the camp liberators, and thus the outside world, were fooled by the disease and starvation that was a result of the bombing the supply lines. To think the Nazis actually starved millions of people to death is absurd. If nothing else it isn’t efficient.

          • JohnEngelman

            The people I have talked to who experienced or observed the concentration camps told me that Jews were deliberately killed in huge gas chambers.

          • Sick of it

            I’ve read statements made at Nuremberg by Jews who said they never saw such things. And Jews who stood up for the character of their jailers…who often ended up dead or in prison regardless. Basically, the trials were all done in secret and the information surrounding them buried for years. There would have been no need if everything was on the up and up.

          • IanJMacDonald

            Holocaust denial seems to be a guiding force among today’s neo-Nazis, but it is worth noting that no Nazi was ever a Holocaust denier. As Tim O’Neill so eloquently pointed out:

            “This one, simple fact shows that everything the modern deniers try to claim is a post hoc contrivance. From 1945 onwards, thousands of Nazis were captured and hundreds tried for their part in the Holocaust and other crimes against humanity. They tried to pretend they were someone else, they tried to pretend they didn’t know what was happening, they tried to pretend they didn’t have as much to do with it as others, they tried to claim they were just following orders and they tried to justify it as ‘the kind of thing that happens in war.’ But what not one of them ever did was deny it happened.”

            Not once did any German National Socialist defendant or witness ever take the stand and say, “No, it’s all lies, there was never any plan to exterminate Jews.”

          • JohnEngelman

            Even if the Holocaust was a myth, which of course it was not, why were the Jews in those camps? Why were they persecuted by the Nazi government? They had done nothing wrong. They did not deserve that.

          • Sick of it

            Those camps were primarily slave labor camps.

          • IstvanIN

            True, all the mayhem they have caused Europeans is exalting to them. Not so much for us.

          • JohnEngelman

            What mayhem?

            What about the persecution directed against them? Jews are persecuted and hated by those who resent their superiority and achievements.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/David-Asplund/1212542247 David Asplund

            What mayhem indeed!
            Communism in the USSR with possibly over 60 million dead as a direct result, Putin recently said that the first Soviet politburo was over 80% Jewish, the Holodomor in the Ukraine which saw possibly 10 million peasants starved to death, was overseen by Lazar Kaganovich who was Jewish, strangely enough in 1932 the year before Hitler was elected.
            On-going promotion of open borders and miscegenation, backing every liberal leftist cause that hurts white people and Christianity.
            I for one resent their achievements and superiority in these areas.

          • IstvanIN

            Editor of Sweden’s largest newspaper, a Jew from Poland, calls for the elimination of Swedish people. Google: Peter Wolodarski.

            PS: Sweden is only 80% Swedish.

          • curri

            Also see the atrocities committed by the Hungarian Soviet Republic
            under the leadership of the Ashkenazic Bela Kun. The leadership of the regime was almost entirely Ashkenazi.

            Quotes contained in Solshentisyn’s 200 Years Together and Slezkine’s The Jewish Century:

            He quotes a Jewish observer (also quoted by Yuri Slezkine; see here, p. 85): “we were astonished to find among the Jews what we never expected from them — cruelty, sadism, unbridled violence — everything that seemed so alien to a people so detached from physical activity; those who yesterday couldn’t handle a rifle, today were among the vicious cutthroats.” Slezkine quotes another Jewish observer:

            The formerly oppressed lover of liberty had turned into a tyrant of “unheard-of-despotic arbitrariness”…. The convinced and unconditional opponent of the death penalty not just for political crimes but for the most heinous offenses, who could not, as it were, watch a chicken being killed, has been transformed outwardly into a leather-clad person with a revolver and, in fact, lost all human likeness (pp. 183–184).

          • IstvanIN

            The jews were the major reason for the revolution of 56. They controlled the secret police and most government organizations.

          • curri

            You need to lean about, for example, the Holodomor.

        • jane johnson

          No, gotta agree with John this time. Children should be told the truth about their heritage; both good and bad. The problem is that there is no objective truth anymore. Everything’s relative, and therefore meaningless. Some call it progress.

          • IstvanIN

            No, children should not be made to feel bad about their own people and hate themselves.

          • jane johnson

            To me, the role of public education is to teach facts in as objective a manner as possible. It is up to families and communities to instill pride and self-worth in their young people. In certain segments of the population, low IQ, high testosterone, and falsely inflated self-esteem are a deadly combination.

          • IstvanIN

            Nope, kids should be taught that Columbus discovered America and that Washington was the Father of Our Country. I am sick of hearing that Columbus was a genocidal maniac or that Washington was an evil slave holder. Our founding fathers were incredible men, the likes of which we will never see again and I, for one, am sick of hearing them put down.

          • jane johnson

            I totally agree about our Founders, and being of Italian descent (my people came from Genoa, same as C.C.), you’ll never hear me disparage Columbus. I feel that it is wrong, however, to tell black kids that this country couldn’t have been built without the “free” labor of their ancestors. It is patently false, and only adds to their sense of grievance and entitlement. It does no one any good, except for the leeches who profit from racial animosity.

          • NorthSea

            Any particular “reverends”, Attorney Generals, or presidents in mind”

          • jane johnson

            The new Three Stooges: Al, Eric, and Barack

          • NorthSea

            Don’t forget Jesse. That makes ‘em the Four Jackasses of the Apocalypse.

          • NorthSea

            Columbus’ landing was a great achievement, but he was foreshadowed by the Norsemen in 1000 AD. Doesn’t take away from Columbus.

          • IstvanIN

            Ah, yes, Leif Ericson, forgot about him.

          • DudeWheresMyCountry?

            How could you forget Leif Ericson and his father, Eric The Red?

          • NorthSea

            Poor Eric had celibacy forced on him. His wife was Christian and wouldn’t sleep with him ’cause he refused to convert.

          • NorthSea

            Actually, a merchant shipper named Bjarni Herjolfsson was blown off course headed to Greenland and sighted the coast of Vinland, but never landed. Leif criticized him for this. I think the Norsemen only stuck around for about 10 years before abandoning North America. They didn’t leave a mark like Columbus did.

          • IstvanIN

            Let us leave the discussion at this: blacks never walked out of their local jungle let alone discovered anything.

          • DudeWheresMyCountry?

            The difference was the Norse didn’t share their intel back in 1000 AD; by the 1490s AD The Western Europeans were directly and inadvertently sharing information and once Columbus returned to Spain with news of “The Indies” word spread and The Spanish, Portugese, French, British and Dutch were sailing across The Atlantic for The Americas.

          • NorthSea

            Yeah, Greenland was not a hotbed of communications.

          • Sick of it

            Apparently the Vatican had learned of the voyages to Vinland and had records of it back then. There are quite a few books teasing out these things.

          • DudeWheresMyCountry?

            Who downvoted this? Come forward and reveal yourself, or be a coward. JE?

          • JohnEngelman

            I voted it down, and you down.

            The “Founding Fathers” so called, were well educated for their time, but they were not infallible and omniscient.

          • DudeWheresMyCountry?

            That isn’t the point. I love Liberal arguments; it’s always down to a 14 year olds mentality. You are trying to argue they weren’t perfect, well guess what everyone knows that, nobody is so it’s a hollow statement. It is their contributions, their achievements, their work that we celebrate, not if they were saints. By such shallow logic nobody ever again should ever be mentioned at all since they too were not models of total perfection, whatever that might be on your “wishing they were slanted” eyes.

          • DudeWheresMyCountry?

            And unfortunately for you you are still and will always be a coward. One thing I will love to see when everything collapses is the looks of reality on the faces of the cowards who will quickly realize they have nobody. Not Jews. Not Asains, not Browns and Blacks… NOT WHITES! Nobody will have your back but I suspect many Blacks and Asians will be happy to filet your back on a big open grill.

          • JohnEngelman

            Insults are the last refuge of those who have nothing to contribute to an intellectual discussion.

          • DudeWheresMyCountry?

            I’m not insulting you; I’m stating what you readily admit to being. Do you really think your small-minded arguments are contributions to an intellectual discussion? You seem to like polls, take a poll here I will wager 80% of the people here don’t think that of you.

          • JohnEngelman

            I would rather tell the truth than falsehoods people want to believe.

          • DudeWheresMyCountry?

            But you don’t tell the truth; you make up your own lies. Do you think people here believe what you say is truthful? Again, take a poll.

            A truth to you is that you want to molest Chinese children.

          • JohnEngelman

            When have I ever lied about anything? Post one of my “lies” so we can discuss it.

            I do have high opinions of Orientals and Jews. It is easy for me to explain why citing material I have found on this website.

            Does Jared Taylor lie? Did Professor Philippe Rushton lie? Those are people I like to quote.

          • IstvanIN

            The Founding Fathers were a remarkable group of men, absolutely remarkable. Rarely does the world see so many great and noble thinkers in one nation and time. Nobody said they were infallible but they were great men. Far greater than any President of my life time, and I was born way back under Eisenhower.

          • DudeWheresMyCountry?

            Ha ha I knew it was you. Do you know that regardless of how you look at it you are a troll?

          • Sick of it

            Actually, even before the voyages of Amerigo Vespucci, the Scandinavians had discovered America and had at least one settlement.

          • DudeWheresMyCountry?

            No children should be taught about their people by other people.

      • Bossman

        The truth about Anglo-Americans in Texas is very ugly. They appeared to be arrogant, racist colonizers who tried to re-institute slavery after it had been outlawed by the Mexicans.

  • NorthSea

    I still disagree. If we had taken Comanches and intentionally shot large numbers of them, as did the SS to Jewish civilians on the Eastern Front, then I would agree. Whatever the vicissitudes of life on the reservations, extermination was not the goal. That large numbers died may be regarded as tragic, but not intentional. We destroyed their culture, not their existence.

    • jane johnson

      True. We had to destroy the village to save it. That is so incredibly sad.

      • NorthSea

        Unless you were a settler. The troopers on the Plains called the Indians “Lo”. Came from a poem some Easterner wrote about the poor Indian, beginning with the word “Lo”. Easterners who were removed from the violence tended to be more sympathetic. As one historian noted, the Easterners didn’t have to continually scan the skyline while working their fields, as did the Westerners.

    • gemjunior

      Well, it seems that the only down votes are unidentified, because I can never see anything there unlike the “likes” or up votes. I think the whole site is like that and we can’t see who votes us down.

  • NorthSea

    The 39th New York State Volunteers were known as the Garibaldi Guard. They had a company of Italians. It’s on Wiki

  • John R

    John Wayne’s Alamo is embellished? Yeah, and I guess all the WWII movies made about the evil Germans were completely accurate, huh?

  • Evette Coutier

    Looking at the past through the moral prism of today is academically and ethically dishonest. First, there has never been an objective view of )history. The best thing we can do for our kids and ourselves is present historical events as factually as possible and leave out modern politics. For once I’d like to see schools and colleges teach facts. Wouldn’t that be a rare treat. Could you imagine the benefits of students being taught facts about race and genetics. Student moral compasses would be a mile ahead of were they are now if they started off with accurate knowledge.

    • DudeWheresMyCountry?

      Teach history by stating more facts and less opinion. And teach history not with any moral compass but with an approach of social Darwinism. Through the prism of natural selection and social and technological Darwinism any child over 10 could understand most of the events of history, with the exception being modern Liberalism and Cultural Marxism.

      • Evette Coutier

        Liberalism and cultural Marxism is the easiest for kids to understand. It’s what happens when teachers force the will of the loser kids on the rest of the other kids in the playground.

  • JohnEngelman

    It is certainly true that whites are not responsible for all the evil in the world.

  • IstvanIN

    Most Americans favor miscegenation, including me.

    Most Americans do not, but at least you have admitted your true colors, not that most of us didn’t already know where you were coming from. Do you wear “Death to YT” t-shirts?

    • DudeWheresMyCountry?

      This is a good thing, consider it trimming the herd of bad genes. There won’t be a JE Jr. for our kids to waste time with. It makes me giddy to think that if someone like him could pass his genes on that they would be some half-breed moron offspring that has nothing to do with our tribe.

    • Epiminondas

      Ignore Engelman. He’s a Gentile-hating Jew. You’ll get nothing from him but venom.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/David-Asplund/1212542247 David Asplund

    “You make it sound that every Jew was a Communist, and every Communist was a Jew”, V Putin said recently 80% of the first Soviet Politburo was Jewish.
    Would communism have existed at all without Karl Marx?

    Why has the Holodomor been relegated to a footnote of history when it caused the deaths of ten million Ukrainians in the year before Hitler was elected?

    Why has Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s “200 years” which is an examination of the intertwined history between the Russian and Jewish people not been translated into English, is it because a certain tribe are shown in a bad light?

    “They are the light of the world. The Ashkenazim are the most superior race in existence.”…I think the Palestinians would beg to differ.
    In Ireland at the moment we have an Ashkenazim Minister of Justice and Defence, who is throwing away our passports like confetti in a way no previous Minister has done, where previously it was 100 a year he has given out over 52,000 in two years, I can assure you that change is one that we do not want.

    • NorthSea

      I saw a video clip of a recent citizenship ceremony in Ireland. I was shocked; I’ve been to the Republic and I saw more Africans in that room than during the week I spent in Ireland.

  • NorthSea

    Sure can’t count on the “government” to help.

  • NorthSea

    Bubba Clinton said the biggest regret of his presidency was not “doing something” about the Hutu-Tsutsi massacre. Makes my blood run cold to imagine the asinine maneuvers he could have pulled. I think the biggest regret of his presidency was his presidency.

  • NorthSea

    I’m not anti-Semitic, but how are the Ashkenazim the most superior race in existence? I wouldn’t look to the religious right for un-biased opinion about Israel; I’ve read that Israeli Christians are persecuted in that society.

    • Sick of it

      They spit on Christians. There are news stories about it.

  • JohnEngelman

    Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you shall allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose, and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect. If today he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, “I see no probability of the British invading us”.

    He will say to you, “Be silent: I see it if you don’t.”

    - Abraham Lincoln, on the Mexican War

    • DudeWheresMyCountry?

      The land was never Mexico’s. The US Southwest was controlled by nomadic tribes that had nothing to do with Mexicans. Mexico gained independence and inherited The Southwest by default; Spain had it’s own issues with Napolean. Mexicans had and have no right or clam to The Southwest; they couldn’t control it and if The US hadn’t taken The Southwest the Whites in these lands would have revolted and become independent nations. It happened in Texas. It was happening in California. Read about The Bear Flag Revolt.

      I love when dumb Mexicans try to claim the US Southwest; it is so easy to tear to shreds, and often tears too!

      • Epiminondas

        Before white Americans began to come into Texas, there were only 10,000 Europeans in the Spanish claimed Southwest…from California to the Mississippi. Not exactly making a big effort to colonize anything, were they?

        • DudeWheresMyCountry?

          You can’t look at the numbers without considering it was the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries and everything was complete wild territory with many hostile Indians. 10,000 Europeans would be like ten million now. At that time those were more impressive numbers and yes, The Spanish were and did make great efforts to colonize The Southwest. The foundations of infrastructure in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas were Spanish mission, garrison and pueblo systems all linked by roads.

          The Spanish were instrumental to the development of The Southwest. The Mexicans have only been instrumental in the destruction of these lands over the last few decades.

        • Sick of it

          Most were in New Mexico to boot.

  • JohnEngelman

    The Southern rebellion was largely the outgrowth of the Mexican war. Nations, like individuals, are punished for their transgressions. We got our punishment in the most sanguinary and expensive war of modern times.

    - Ulysses S. Grant, on the Mexican War

    • Epiminondas

      Grant was one of the most misinformed individuals ever to hold office. His gullibility and naiveté resulted in the most corrupt US administration ever. A good soldier, though.

      • Sick of it

        He wanted to punish the South, so he went along with the Radical Republicans. He was not naive. Don’t give him the benefit of the doubt.

      • MBlanc46

        Misinformed? I don’t see that. A political naif, absolutely. Definitely a
        great commander. And an astute analyst of the history of his times.

  • JohnEngelman

    Generally, the officers of the army were indifferent whether the annexation was consummated or not; but not so all of them. For myself, I was bitterly opposed to the measure, and to this day regard the war, which resulted, as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. It was an instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies, in not considering justice in their desire to acquire additional territory.

    - Ulysses S. Grant, on the Mexican War

    • DudeWheresMyCountry?

      And thank goodness it happened! My only regret is we didn’t take more land; could you imagine what Baja California would be if it had been part of the US since 1848? It is a wasteland. Mexicans are for the most part worthless and history is the biggest supporter of this reality.

    • MBlanc46

      Grant’s memoir is wonderful.

  • curri

    IRA/Sinn Fein has been Marxist since the 1960s.

    • Sick of it

      Fenian socialism is a form of socialism just like any other. Thus I’m 100% anti-socialist.

  • skara_brae

    Yes, the Melungeon. I haven’t looked at Elvis or Ava Gardner the same way since.

    • OlderWoman

      I read that Elvis mother was of gypsy heritage.

  • IanJMacDonald

    Had the spirit of political correctness prevailed back in 1836, General Santa Ana would have been able to capture the Alamo without firing a shot simply by denouncing all the defenders as “racists.” The Alamo defenders, their mind infected and weakened by cultural Marxism, would have thrown down their guns and surrendered just to prove that they weren’t.

    ***
    Whenever some barking moonbat tries to delegitimize Texas by claiming that the Anglos “stole” it from Mexico, I respond in two ways.

    First, we didn’t steal it; we built it.

    Second, the Mexicans had an undefended border along the Sabine River, allowing Anglo settlers to cross at will, combined with an essentially open-border immigration policy, and look what happened to them.

  • IanJMacDonald

    Disease and whiskey killed more Indians than the white man’s bullets. You may call it “genocide”; I call that an evolutionary dead end.

  • Sick of it

    If they got off the boat the same time as that part of my ancestry in Louisiana, they would have been too old to fight for the Confederacy. Their kids most likely fought for the Confederacy.

  • Fair Dingum

    They were on the wrong side of history.

  • Sick of it

    Their recent history is appallingly depressing. Massive immigration. Foreign language enablers. Miscegenation on a massive scale.

  • Sick of it

    The Greeks, though pagans, punished a LOT of things we shrug off today, across cultures.

  • Sick of it

    Depends on which immigrants. We also got a lot of 48ers…some of whom became Union officers, even generals, during the Civil War despite not being Americans. And of course there’s the paid Irish mercenaries.

  • Sick of it

    Technically, traditional American miscegenation was white man and non-white woman. Under slavery they had white wives as well. The situation today involves our women being prostituted to the world.

    • JohnEngelman

      White women are not “being prostituted to the world.” Many are choosing non white lovers and husbands. That is their right. It is not your right, nor that of anyone else, to forbid them.

  • ViktorNN

    Whenever I hear white liberals and non-whites whine about how whites “stole” N. America, I don’t go into apologizing and excuse making.

    We fought for, conquered, and won this land through force of will and at considerable cost. Those who opposed us lost. End of story. There’s nothing to feel bad about, and nothing we owe anyone.

  • NorthSea

    Frederick W. Benteen, a colonel in the Union Army during the War, and one of Custer’s captains in the Seventh Cavalry later, said he never met an Abolitionist in the Union Army.

  • NorthSea

    Love Billy Bob’s last line, when he’s awaing execution: “I gotta warn you boys, I’m a screamer”

  • NorthSea

    He was merely bringing vibrant diversity to Europe in the 13th Century.

  • Luca

    Five minute history: Mexico won Texas from Spain in its war for independence. Mexico could not tame, cultivate, develop or successfully build a sustainable colony in Texas. They advertised for emigrants. American immigrants answered the call, settled and built Texas. Disputes arose. Texans won independence. Texas joined the Union. Mexico didn’t like that and border disputes arose along with military skirmishes. The Mexican-American war ensued. Mexico was easily defeated. The US settled with the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, the US took control of what is now the Southwestern US and paid about $20 million to Mexico.

    These are the basic facts. The forces of the politically-correct can dispute the minutiae for centuries to come. What is sometimes conveniently overlooked by liberal academia was America’s reasonable fear that if they did not spread across the continent the western flank would be ripe for an invasion from foreign powers.

    Radical Liberalism is a sick cult.

  • Formerly_Known_as_Whiteplight

    For any interested in reading the history of the treatment of white captives in Texas the book, “A Fate Worse than Death,” by Michno has a huge section on Texas. Since Texas was first a far off territory, then an independent state before soon being part of the Confederacy, the Texans had to deal with a far longer period of savage treatment at the hands of the probably two worst tribes in American history; the Comanches and the Kiowa. The book is also a great history for anyone that wants an up close study of what it was like for settlers in other parts of the country during the 19th century.

  • Formerly_Known_as_Whiteplight

    The Acadians were some of the earliest settlers in Quebec. After the French lost the Seven Years War in Europe and lost French Canada, all the Qubecois were sworn to loyalty to the British Crown. The Acadians far from the center (Montreal, Quebec City, etc.) refused to take the oath and were exiled. They moved to still French Louisiana and became the ‘Cajuns.” (My fifth great grandfather fought in the French and Indian War (North American theater of the Seven Years War). These French differed from the Huguenots in the American colonies in that they were Catholic and remained loyal to the French crown.

  • William Allingham

    I have always said that only eurocentric ignorant liberals believe the nonsense of the noble indian.

    in mexico mestizos are no nobler than the average corrupt ex-president, in fact they can be crueler more hypocrite and despise indians even more.

    as Oscar Lewis recorded in his book from poor mexican families; one husband said about his wife “shes more indian than me” explaining that she didn’t know how to read (meaning that she is more ignorant or less intelligent).

    in mexico “indio” is synonymous to ignorant and brute. if a “noble” mestizo wants to insult another; he will call him and “indio”.

    which reminds me of another funny word in mexico: “Gorilismo” used by policemen themselves to describe their police system; from the root word Gorilla which indicates having a brutal, insensitive attitude (supposedly like gorillas but ironically Gorillas can be nobler and dont do as despicable things)

    on average mestizos in mexico have a little more skills than full indians but lack a real sense of morality that enables them to be reliable or as Oscar Lewis found out “they claim to have middle class values but they just dont live by them” (perhaps they are not being honest about them?)