July 9, 2025 • 33 mins
The Battle of San Jacinto might be the most consequential 18 minutes in Texas history that hardly anyone talks about. While the Alamo casts a long shadow over Texas history, it's San Jacinto that actually secured Texas independence and set in motion events that would reshape North America forever.
Join Gene and Scott as they examine why this pivotal battle deserves to take its rightful place in our understanding of how modern Texas emerged from the battle we call "the first armed action of Manifest Destiny." The ripple effects of San Jacinto would ultimately help reshape the course of not just Texas, but American history itself.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
This podcast is not sponsored by and does not
reflect the views of theinstitutions that employ us.
It is solely our thoughts andideas, based upon our
professional training and studyof the past.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Welcome to Talking Texas History, the podcast that
explores Texas history beforeand beyond the Alamo.
Not only will we talk Texashistory, we'll visit with folks
who teach it, write it, supportit, and with some who've made it
and, of course, all of us wholive it and love it.
I'm Scott Sosby and I'm GenePreuss, and this is Talking
(00:36):
Texas History.
Welcome to another edition ofTalking Texas History.
I'm Gene Preuss.
Speaker 1 (00:46):
I'm Scott Sosny.
Speaker 2 (00:48):
We have not.
We've been bad, we haven't donebeen consistent.
Speaker 1 (00:54):
Don't say we've been bad, we've been busy.
How about that?
Speaker 2 (00:57):
And I've been sick.
You know I was on and off sickfor about three months and I got
sick again last and it wouldcome and go.
I would get to feeling better.
Then I would.
Another way.
I say it was allergies,although my brother-in-law says,
well, it sounds like long COVID.
But knock wood, I don't thinkI've had COVID, but I don't know
(01:18):
, I don't know, it could just beyou're getting old.
Maybe it was COVID.
Speaker 1 (01:26):
There's always something worse, right.
Speaker 2 (01:28):
Right, there's always something worse, but anyway.
So we're back on track and Iwant to say we had a really good
interview with Brian Stonetalking about Jewish history in
Texas, and that's something wedon't normally talk about, we
don't see a lot about, and soit's good to have, you know,
fresh and new perspectivesthere's all that, all kinds of
(01:50):
aspects of texas history that wedon't hear about, and that's
one good thing to get it out.
Speaker 1 (01:54):
but one aspect of texas history we hear all about
all the time is the revolution,and the texas revolution I guess
what would you say?
That's the most popular topicever in Texas history, probably,
I mean.
Speaker 2 (02:05):
Well, you know, in my experience, when I was growing
up and I was going through grad,through school, graduate school
, people say, well, what are youmajoring in history?
Well, what do you like so?
Well, I'm doing Actually, Iwasn't doing Texas history, I
was doing just history.
And people would say, well,tell me about the Alamo.
And I was like, well, you know,since San Antonio, what do you
want to know about it?
But, you know, that's all.
(02:27):
The revolution looms large inpeople's minds and you can go
like I've gone, you know toEngland and to other places and
people will ask me about theTexas Revolution or the Alamo.
Speaker 1 (02:43):
It's definitely has become the leading topic, I
think, amongst the people thatthink about Texas.
See, the cowboys and the Alamois what comes to people's minds
when they think of Texas.
First off, I suppose, Maybecoming later, it'll be Landman
here in the next few years.
Everybody watches that all thetime.
But one thing aboutxasrevolution that I've always
(03:03):
thought gets short shrift isthis whole ador let's call it
adoration for the alamo.
Almost you know right, I don'tknow the daughters of the
republic of texas called it theshrine of texas liberty.
That comes about almost in areligious sense but that to me
always seemed to overshadow whatI think was a much more
(03:25):
consequential part of the TexasRevolution and that is the
Battle of San Jacinto, or, ifyou're a good gringo, battle of
San Jacinto, because the finalbattle of the Texas Revolution,
and I think it's that waybecause of the effect that it
had.
Of course, texas gainingindependence, that's a big thing
(03:45):
.
We're Texans it's a big thing,but it's a consequential battle
in the whole breadth of Americanhistory and I don't think
people realize that that it is avery important battle when you
talk about it in the wholebreadth of American history.
Speaker 2 (04:02):
Are we just saying that because we're Texas
historians?
Speaker 1 (04:04):
No, we're not saying that.
There are reasons why that isthe case, which is for the next
26 minutes or so.
We'll just cut.
Speaker 2 (04:13):
Okay, let's talk about that.
You're absolutely right.
We both teach Texas history andI'll ask my students Allegedly.
I'll ask my students.
I say, well, what do you knowabout the Alamo?
And everybody you know, theyraise their hands and they'll
give me some information aboutit.
I say, well, what do you knowabout San Jacinto?
(04:35):
And I'll just get blank staresand I'm sitting in a classroom
that's what?
Speaker 1 (04:40):
20 miles from the battle.
Speaker 2 (04:42):
I tell them, I in fact, fact, I've gone over and
opened the window, on thewindows that face to the east.
I said look straight over there.
Now you, you can't see itbecause there's buildings in the
way, but but it's flat right,so you almost could.
It's like living in love 60years ago.
You can almost see the sanjacinto monument from where we
sit.
We're on buffalo bayou, sanjacinto monuments at the end of
(05:05):
Buffalo Bayou.
Yes, you just look east, about20 miles, and you've seen that.
I tell them, you drove by aninterstate tenant and you've
seen that monument.
What do you think it means?
And they don't know.
Speaker 1 (05:21):
It's amazing, it's absolutely amazing to me that we
have forgotten all there is tothink about San Jacinto.
Speaker 2 (05:27):
But it's as you say, you know, the Alamo and the.
Our adoration and our, our loveof that story has overwhelmed,
I think, the landscape, it'slike those buildings that have
been put up right that you can'tsee the, the monument is, we
can't see San Jacinto because ofwhat people have built up
around the Alamo.
Speaker 1 (05:48):
The giant shadow cast by the Alamo.
Right, the giant shadow cast bythe Alamo.
That's a good book.
Title In the Shadow of theAlamo.
Speaker 2 (05:59):
Yeah, people don't realize that we're coming up
with gems on this program.
Speaker 1 (06:02):
That's right.
All 12 of the people that aregoing to hear this are going to
just be so enlightened.
It's unbelievable.
Speaker 2 (06:09):
All right.
So, scott, tell us You'rereally kind of more the expert
on this period.
I mean, living in Nacogdoches,you're surrounded by stuff about
the Texas Revolution.
So what happened on April 21st?
Speaker 1 (06:21):
1836?
Happened on april 21st 1836.
Well, texas, I guess, gainedtheir independence, I suppose on
that battlefield between uhbuffalo, uh, between buffalo bio
and uh the marsh reads on theother side, where sam houston
confronted the mexican army, uhfor the first and only time, uh,
when he was the commander ofthe texas uh army, that came
(06:42):
about.
That know, there's a lot ofspeculation about how that
battle came about and why theycame to be there, what Houston
was trying to do.
But what you can't speculate,you know, it was a, it was a
decisive route.
It was one of the most decisivebattles ever fought in American
history Because, in the sensewhen I say decisive, I mean
because it was such anoverwhelming victory by the
(07:06):
Texian forces.
The battle part of it, as faras the two armies engaging is
over within 18 minutes, which isan amazing amount of number.
Now, the killing went on forhours afterwards and the killing
, in that regard, was theTexians killing, basically
killing Mexican soldiers theycame upon and you know, some of
(07:27):
them they captured.
But the final statistics areoverwhelming About 600 Mexicans,
a little over 600 Mexicansoldiers killed, 200 Mexican
soldiers wounded and theycaptured over 700.
The whole force of about 1,500Mexican troops was accounted for
in those statistics.
Texans lost nine dead, 30wounded.
(07:50):
I mean that's a decisive battle.
That happened about that whenthey came on.
But you tell stories about itthat is unbelievable that you
hear about the Battle of SanJacinto and that 18 minute
coming across.
They caught the Mexicans bysurprise.
Santana obviously did notbelieve he thought the Texians
(08:13):
would attack on the morning ofApril 21st.
Both the armies had arrivedthere and pitched their camps on
the separate sides of theprairie there on the 20th.
The Texans had arrived theprairie there on the 20th.
The Texans had arrived late inthe afternoon on April 20th.
The Mexican army was alreadythere and Santa Ana was sure
that the Texans would attack onthe morning, because that's when
(08:36):
you attack is on the morning ofApril 21st.
But they didn't.
So he was convinced that well,I will attack them the next
morning.
If they're not going to do it,we'll just rest and I'll make
the attack the next morning, onthe 22nd.
But about 2 o'clock in theafternoon Houston ordered the
advance of the Texian soldiersacross the prairie and they
(08:57):
caught the Mexican armycompletely unaware.
Santa Ana had not sent outenough tickets to Texians.
Come across.
The grass was high enough wherethey could hide into it and
they were right on them whenthey actually surprised them and
the battle was enjoined Aftermost of the initial exchanges
(09:18):
came on and the Texans wereessentially rounding up Mexican
soldiers.
The killing was unbelievable inthat day and the Texian army was
enraged by what had gone on atthe Alamo, at Goliad, and they
were indiscriminately justkilling Mexicans.
They came across, they werekilling them as they were down
(09:41):
in the water trying to hide Imean literally like shooting
fish in a barrel.
They were killing prisoners.
They came across.
There's one story about a Texanbashing in the head of a young
Mexican drummer boy about 12years old, who's already had
both his legs broken, to killhim.
So it was very much of a.
There was a lot of rage on thatbattlefield that day, all taken
(10:05):
out, which we could parse thatand actually get into how that
is for many.
But on that day Santa Ana waseventually captured, of course,
and that led to him ordering theMexican army to leave.
I shouldn't have listened tohim, but he did the Mexican army
to leave Texas and Texasessentially gained independence,
if that's what you want to call.
(10:25):
What happened after that,although we can discuss how that
was on many occasions.
So there you go, on April 21st1836.
Speaker 2 (10:34):
All right, let's talk a little bit about this.
You had mentioned this lopsidedvictory and some of the
animosity that was held there.
The animosity that was heldthere and people kind of point
to that, especially in moderntimes talk about the racism and
this killing of unarmed orincapacitated Mexican soldiers,
(10:59):
some of them who were surrend orhad surrendered, and in fact
there are stories of some of theofficers and some of the, you
know, of the of the Texianofficers trying to stop the
killing and trying to sayNacogdoches is Thomas Jefferson.
Speaker 1 (11:15):
Rush tried to stop the killing of that young
Mexican boy that I mentioned,and the Texian soldier
threatened to kill him if hedidn't let him go ahead and go
through with it.
Speaker 2 (11:25):
Yeah, so you know there is, we talk about that.
But you know, as you said, thisbattle cry of remember the
Alamo, remember Goliad, you gotto understand, we've got to
understand, and I'm not you know, I'm saying, you know, saying
we should ignore that or paperover that.
(11:46):
But on the other hand, we don'twant to ignore that is that
there had been atrocities onboth sides and Santa Ana was
looked down upon by some of hisown soldiers, some of his own
officers, for the way he hadbehaved at those other battles.
Speaker 1 (12:07):
Well, I mean, what is it?
Three of the officers, or atleast two, uriah and Fili Sola,
would become opponents ofSantana political opponents of
Santana back in Mexico later on,and neither one of them, I
don't't think, respected Santanathat much.
On this, uriel was incensedessentially by the order that
(12:31):
Santana had given him that hewas to execute all the prisoners
that he'd taken after theBattle of Toledo Creek at Goliad
.
He was a good soldier and heunderstood that Santana was his
superior officer, so he carriedthat order out.
Speaker 2 (12:48):
But, it's hard to say it was the same way to write a
Goliad.
Speaker 1 (12:51):
Yeah, filosola was.
Yeah, filosola Urias.
At Goliad.
Filosola was with Santana atthat time.
That's Filosola, of course, wasItalian.
I love this story.
Our old mentor, cam Martinez,told me this story one time.
He said Filosola was Italianbecause he was a mercenary from
Italy.
And so Cam used to say you know, mexico?
(13:15):
Everybody says Mexico lostTexas.
Mexico didn't lose Texas, italydid.
Filosola should have notlistened to Santana continue the
war, should have not listenedto Santana continue the war.
But probably Filosola decidedto retreat because he didn't
want to be up there anyway,because he didn't support what
Santana was doing.
(13:40):
But yes, I mean atrocities.
You know war is.
You know they call it the fogof war, and it's kind of.
You know, we don't things get.
People believe certain things,I suppose, and certainly when
you talk about the mass killingsat San Jacinto after the battle
, certainly there's Americanracism towards the people of
Mexican descent.
It's fueling some of that.
(14:00):
There's also, though, somesense that they had been wrong
and that they, you know, youknow it's one of those things.
The Texians, I guess, thinkthey're fighting for
independence.
But if you look at it from aMexican perspective, these
people are committing treason,right.
And what's the penalty fortreason it's death Right.
(14:21):
So in Santa Ana's mind, Isuppose, and many Mexicans, if
they executed everybody at theAlamo and everybody at Golia,
they're just carrying out thesentence for treason for
revolting against the countryabout this.
So it's one of those situationswhere we can think of a lot of
things on both sides and come upwith the same answer.
Speaker 2 (14:41):
Well, I think one of the dangers and you know we were
always, you know, warned aboutthis idea of presentism.
You know this is what they callthe historian's dilemma is that
, you know, we look back at thepast and atrocities in war or
just bad behavior, and we tendto judge it, and we've got to
(15:02):
judge it in their own time frame, you know, and in the heat of
war, you know, thank goodnessyou and I have never been in war
, but you know you've got to.
I think that this probablyhappens.
It's not the things you want towrite stories about, or people
(15:23):
have written stories about muchin the past, and so, you know,
it reminds me of the old CivilWar.
That saying was it Sheridan orGrant maybe said that it's well
that war is so terrible, or wewould grow fond of it.
Speaker 1 (15:39):
It was actually Lee.
Lee said that.
Speaker 2 (15:40):
Lee said that.
So see, you're the militarystory, not me.
You're the military, sorry, notme, but this thing is that we
romanticize war and battles andwe realize we forget these are
human beings who are in stressand in terror and fear for their
lives, and we sometimes, inthose situations, do things we
(16:11):
may not do in more rationaltimes.
And it's easy for us as people,sitting in an easy chair and
you know, in an air conditionedbuilding, looking at documents
and saying, well, they werewrong about this, they did this
wrong.
It's hard to do that, it's hardto know when you're in the heat
of things.
Speaker 1 (16:22):
Well, sure, and you know, you know, I think,
something we perhaps don't thinkabout when we study these
things, particularly on thetexting side these guys are not
professional soldiers.
Speaker 2 (16:33):
This is another good point.
Speaker 1 (16:35):
They're militia members.
They're you know, they'revolunteers, which is probably
some of the whole thing of someof the officers trying to, you
know, bring about a sense oforder on the battlefield to
these soldiers that they were,by this point, they had overcome
(16:59):
by emotion and everything elsewhen they were doing what they
were doing.
That's what Santana does.
I remember Santana was apolitical animal and what he was
doing in Texas was that was apolitical act to stop any sort
of opposition to his dictatorialrule, and the best way to do
that is through fear, just likehe had done in Zacatecas before
he came to Texas.
I mean, the Texians should haveknown this is what he was going
(17:20):
to do, considering they knewwhat he, they knew what he had
done in Zacatecas.
On this, so, yeah, the sense ofthe battle was something else.
Speaker 2 (17:31):
And your comment there about these were not
trained soldiers for the mostpart and that some of the
officers were, and they wereappalled at the behavior of the
undisciplined person with arms,and that is something we don't
think about.
But this, that age of Jackson,this was across the military, uh
(17:55):
, and there are stories about itin histories of that period,
you know, and look at SamHouston.
I mean, he was the, he was thecommander of the army, in name
only you know just because ofthe, the, the, the, the
government has said okay, you'rethe commander, but nobody
listened to him.
Speaker 1 (18:11):
He, you know, he had, he had advised don't be here,
let's move out of here, and andthey ignored him because, uh,
they were more democraticallyinclined the leadership of the
texas revolution might be a goodcase study of how this is not
leadership when you look at howthis is a chaos that was going
on around that.
Speaker 2 (18:32):
Let's talk about, you know, let's talk about after
the battle.
I mean, certainly, you knowwe're happy at the way things
turned out.
I mean there was a lot, therewere a lot of problems.
I mean the discriminationagainst Mexicans in general
after the revolution continued,and we don't talk about that
(18:53):
very often.
But you know, we look at theMexican population, a lot of
people left as a result of therevolution.
But I want to get into whathappens later.
It wasn't at the battle thatthe independents was won and,
like I say, let's talk aboutthat in a little bit.
But what happened at velasco?
So a little bit further south,uh, on the coast, uh by freeport
(19:16):
today, of course, uh, santanawas captured.
Speaker 1 (19:19):
Uh, at the uh san francisco.
He was captured and thesentiment amongst these not
regular soldiers in the Texianarmy was that they wanted to,
you know, using their emotionsand whatever else to immediately
execute Santana.
Well, houston knew better thanthat, because he knew that this
was a viable chip, because whatHouston understood was probably
(19:40):
the soldiers didn't was thatessentially from the moment, but
the moment he was captured,because he was captured, santana
was no longer the president ofMexico, therefore he could not
issue.
He was also no longer thecommander of the Mexican army,
because you don't obey ordersfrom a captured commander.
(20:01):
But Houston understood that hewas a good political little chip
to use in negotiations and sowe had to keep him alive.
Uh, after David, uh G Burnett,the president, the interim
president of Mexico, shows up,they move Santana to Velasco to
get him away from people whowanted to kill him.
And even then they had to puthim on a ship out in the middle
(20:22):
of the of the bay off of Velascoto keep people from perhaps
kidnapping.
And they had Santana.
Eventually, they drew up twodifferent treaties, to some
extent, or two tenets to whatwould become the Treaty of
Velasco.
In the Treaty of VelascoSantana signs and it says that
(20:42):
Texas gets its independence.
And also Santana promises tohelp the United States.
I mean help Texas becomerecognized by the United States.
How they thought he could dothat, I don't know.
He's opposed, but the thingabout it is that we always
forget about the Treaty ofVelasco.
First off, santana signs thatunder somewhat of duress he's a
prisoner at that time.
That can't be valid.
(21:03):
Be valid.
But also mexico is.
Folks, I mean santana may havedissolved the, the, the states
and, and dissolved theconstitution of 1824 and
whatever, but mexico is still arepublic, that that operates
under basically the same rulesas the united states.
Right, a treaty is not validuntil the mexican congress
(21:23):
actually uh, authorizes thattreaty and votes on its
authorization.
And they refused to do so.
They did not.
The Treaty of Velasco is neverenforced as far as Mexico is
concerned.
So as far as Mexico isconcerned, texas does not get
its independence in 1836.
They recognize Texas as still asovereign part of their
(21:44):
territory.
And Mexico goes further, ofcourse, and says any attempts
they know what's going on by theUnited States to annex Texas,
we will consider that an act ofwar.
Did Texas get independencethere.
I don't know if they did or not.
Speaker 2 (21:59):
You know this was something, and Kyle, about seven
, eight years ago, within thepast 10 years, texas State
Historical Association meetingand I was talking to Steve
Harden and talking about theTexas Revolution and Steve goes
did Texas really get itsindependence after San Jacinto?
And I said, well, of course itdid.
(22:20):
He goes, really.
He goes, look at what happened.
And it wasn't until then thatyou know what happened and it
wasn't until then that you know,following this line of
reasoning, where you're going.
The treaty and the so-calledsecret treaty that Santa Ana
signed, that he was going to goback and help get this thing
ratified.
Never did.
You know, under the rules ofinternational law, as you're
(22:44):
saying, he was a prisoner of warwhen this was signed.
It isn't enforceable.
And then Mexican governmentdidn't ratify it.
So the treaty was basicallyignored.
And then, if we look at thehistory now I tell the students,
look at American history.
You know we had the Texas, theAmerican Revolution, and it was
(23:08):
the Peace of Paris.
You know the Peace Treaty itwas ratified.
It was accepted internationallythat the United States was
independent.
None of that ever happened forthe Texas Revolution.
And in fact in 1842, you getMexico, you know, sending costs
(23:32):
up a couple of times and he, asfar as San Antonio, right, and
you know he's, and he's, look,I'm just checking on the
territory, right, I'm, you know,checking things out.
Because, as out, because, asfar as mexico was concerned,
texas was still their colony.
Uh, no other country recognizedthat we were independent.
(23:56):
Now, we behaved, we actedindependently, we acted as if we
were independent, and mexicojust kind of left us the united
states doesn't always.
Speaker 1 (24:05):
the last act that jackson's doing is he's leaving
office in 1837 that herecognizes Texas.
You know, that's you know, andhe does that because he can't be
opposed, and that's one ofthese, these things that we
probably should get into is,again, this stuff is the effect
is that Texas and the results ofthe Battle of San Jacinto had
(24:26):
on American history and what'sgoing on in the United States.
Speaker 2 (24:31):
So this is 100% correct and you're right, it's
something we don't really focuson very much, and I might just
say that maybe I'm guilty ofthat too, whether you know.
(24:58):
How does it affect the UnitedStates?
I think these are great topicsthat historians could look at
and should look at, but again,is it because they're
overshadowed by the Alamo thatwe don't see that much?
Paul Lack did some writing onthe texas republic period, but,
uh, and he just came out with abook a couple of years ago, uh,
(25:21):
following up on it, but otherthan that, there really hasn't
that much not be gene that we.
Speaker 1 (25:28):
It's a disconnect.
I think.
As texas historians, we get toowrapped up in that.
To use our, our, our greattitle metaphor, we talked about
being in the shadow of the Alamosometimes, and when we talk
about the Texas Revolution, wekeep it so Texas-centric and we
talk okay, what's the result ofSan Jacinto?
(25:49):
Well, we go into the Republicof Texas.
That's the direct result thatwe talk about is the result of
San Jacinto.
What we forget is that, though,this is a larger cloth of
American history as well,because, first off, we say, oh,
this revolution started and runby Texans.
(26:10):
Well, there was no such thingas Texans.
Then, really, who was itstarted and run by Americans,
citizens of the United Statesthat had come to Texas.
Therefore, and why did theycome to Texas?
What's the whole reason for allthose who came to Texas?
They gained territory.
Right, that was the number onething.
(26:31):
They gained land.
They're looking from the momentthey get here, they're looking
this is, you know, expand, ifyou will, american influence.
We start talking about howmanifest destiny and the
expansion of territory is like agovernmentally sponsored
program, but in American historyit's not necessarily that way.
American people are out infront of their government quite
(26:53):
often doing these things and thegovernment's falling on behind.
Well, they're already there.
We better do something aboutthis.
So these are Americans who areadvancing American territory, if
you will, moving into Texas andstarting this war to gain
territory?
Yes.
To spread the institution ofslavery?
Yes, they did.
I happen to think that'ssomewhat of a secondary thing.
(27:15):
It's part of the TexasRevolution.
I will never say it's thenumber one thing of the Texas
Revolution, which puts me atodds with the number of current,
if you will, historians aboutthis.
I think it's part, but it is.
I call it and I do this inclass and I say it's the first
armed action to manifest destiny.
That's what the TexasRevolution and San Jacinto is,
(27:37):
because it expands.
It's expanding Americaninfluence, expanding American
territory.
That's why Mexico reacts theway it does.
We don't want these Americanshere, because guess what?
It's going to lead to theUnited States of America, right
at our doorstep.
And what are they going to wantto do?
Well, next thing, you know,they're going to want New Mexico
and Arizona and California.
(27:58):
Well, guess what happened.
As soon as that happened inTexas comes in, what's the next
step?
Well, we want all of it at thispoint.
And of course and that's in theMexican war, is the a war?
It's our first war of manifestdestiny.
It's war, it's our first war ofmanifest destiny.
Uh, it's, and they're all partof the same.
(28:18):
The mexican war doesn't start.
Probably I know we're notsupposed to ever be a historical
, but the mexican war doesn'tstart if there's not a san
jacinto, if there's not arepublic of texas.
Right, that's what starts themexican war.
And the mexican war doesn'tstart.
And you don't have the mexicansession.
But also, guess what?
That?
What does all that mexicansession start?
We start debating over the, the, uh, whole influence of slavery
(28:43):
in the west and it reignitesthe slavery held, the annexation
of texas in 1836.
In 1837, uh, when texas startstalking like, hey, we want to be
part of the United States, thenorthern congressmen stand up
and go, no, we're not goingthere because it's adding
another slave state and thewhole balance of power.
So that debate had been tampeddown somewhat after the Missouri
(29:07):
Compromise.
Texas reignited it all overagain and starts that in.
And that's why it's such afascinating thing and I think as
Texas historians we lose thatsometimes.
Speaker 2 (29:18):
Well, you know, then you need to go into the
discussion about the Knights ofthe Golden Circle, and that's
another group that has fallenoff out of the history books,
and these were people you know,and John C Calhoun was one of
them.
They wanted to expand slavery,and so I'm with you.
(29:39):
I don't think slavery was theprimary cause, but it was an
underlying theme because itaffected everything.
It affects so much, so yeah, Iagree.
It affects so much, so yeah, Iagree.
Speaker 1 (30:02):
Well, and these Americans?
Speaker 2 (30:03):
I think it's safe to say most of them almost all of
them come from the South.
Speaker 1 (30:06):
They just assumed that slavery would be legal.
They just assumed that it wouldbe legal and that's what they
brought in with them, and Mexicohad essentially accommodated
them every time on this.
Speaker 2 (30:14):
Well, it goes back to what you were saying earlier is
that, you know, most of themwere Texans and you're right,
Most of them were Southernerswho came in and what they wanted
to do, you know I think MaryTeran says this right they have
their constitutions in theirpockets and they, they wanted to
create a recreate.
(30:37):
They wanted to recreate thegovernments, the institutions as
they knew it, because that'swhat they had come from and I
think that's that's that's whathappens and was it?
Speaker 1 (30:49):
Mexico chose to populate Texas with the exact
Texas was the exact worst peoplethey could have thought of to
populate Texas, in that theybrought Americans in, in
particular Southern Americans,because there was and they were
in this area, there was nevergoing to be any assimilation.
These people were not going tobecome Mexican.
Speaker 2 (31:08):
Right, and that's what Mary Turenne says, right.
Speaker 1 (31:09):
That's right, and so he said it yeah.
Speaker 2 (31:11):
Yeah, that's in that report that that actually helps
start.
You know the conflagrationbecause there's a reaction to
that.
And then you get the law ofApril 6th 1830.
No more immigration, no moreslaves, and that was overturned.
Another thing that we're oftenmissing in our history books
(31:32):
that law was overturned, but itstarts the ball rolling.
Speaker 1 (31:36):
I think Absolutely, absolutely.
So there you go.
That's why we think and we talkabout San Jacinto, what we
should never forget.
Yeah, okay, it's significant inTexas history, it's very
significant in American history,and I'm talking American
history writ large.
Think about.
Have we ever thought about Gene?
Have you ever thought about theimportance and the place of San
(31:58):
Jacinto and the TexasRevolution in Mexican history
and how it affected Mexicanhistory?
I don't know.
I wonder how they teach that inMexico and what is the take on
that?
That's something I would loveto see somebody explore and
somebody explain to me aboutthat.
Speaker 2 (32:17):
Well, I think that's something that we'll have to do
at a different time, and weought to get somebody on here
who does that right, who teachesit from the Mexican point of
view Sure, that would beabsolutely A great idea, scott.
We're at the end and wenormally ask people what do they
know?
But we already know.
Speaker 1 (32:38):
We already know, we know nothing.
Speaker 2 (32:40):
We're like Sergeant Schultz and Hogan T Rose we know
nothing.
Well, very good.
Well, welcome back.
We're going to get the showback on course and set aside
some time to do some morerecording, so hopefully we're
going to get our shows out alittle bit more regularly, once
again every two weeks or so.
Scott, welcome back and good tosee you.
Speaker 1 (32:57):
Thank you and all our listeners.
Tune back in, Get back in thehabit of listening to us.
Thank you very much All right,have a great one.
This podcast is not sponsored by and does not
reflect the views of theinstitutions that employ us.
It is solely our thoughts andideas, based upon our
professional training and studyof the past.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Welcome to Talking Texas History, the podcast that
explores Texas history beforeand beyond the Alamo.
Not only will we talk Texashistory, we'll visit with folks
who teach it, write it, supportit, and with some who've made it
and, of course, all of us wholive it and love it.
I'm Scott Sosby and I'm GenePreuss, and this is Talking
(00:36):
Texas History.
Welcome to another edition ofTalking Texas History.
I'm Gene Preuss.
Speaker 1 (00:46):
I'm Scott Sosny.
Speaker 2 (00:48):
We have not.
We've been bad, we haven't donebeen consistent.
Speaker 1 (00:54):
Don't say we've been bad, we've been busy.
How about that?
Speaker 2 (00:57):
And I've been sick.
You know I was on and off sickfor about three months and I got
sick again last and it wouldcome and go.
I would get to feeling better.
Then I would.
Another way.
I say it was allergies,although my brother-in-law says,
well, it sounds like long COVID.
But knock wood, I don't thinkI've had COVID, but I don't know
(01:18):
, I don't know, it could just beyou're getting old.
Maybe it was COVID.
Speaker 1 (01:26):
There's always something worse, right.
Speaker 2 (01:28):
Right, there's always something worse, but anyway.
So we're back on track and Iwant to say we had a really good
interview with Brian Stonetalking about Jewish history in
Texas, and that's something wedon't normally talk about, we
don't see a lot about, and soit's good to have, you know,
fresh and new perspectivesthere's all that, all kinds of
(01:50):
aspects of texas history that wedon't hear about, and that's
one good thing to get it out.
Speaker 1 (01:54):
but one aspect of texas history we hear all about
all the time is the revolution,and the texas revolution I guess
what would you say?
That's the most popular topicever in Texas history, probably,
I mean.
Speaker 2 (02:05):
Well, you know, in my experience, when I was growing
up and I was going through grad,through school, graduate school
, people say, well, what are youmajoring in history?
Well, what do you like so?
Well, I'm doing Actually, Iwasn't doing Texas history, I
was doing just history.
And people would say, well,tell me about the Alamo.
And I was like, well, you know,since San Antonio, what do you
want to know about it?
But, you know, that's all.
(02:27):
The revolution looms large inpeople's minds and you can go
like I've gone, you know toEngland and to other places and
people will ask me about theTexas Revolution or the Alamo.
Speaker 1 (02:43):
It's definitely has become the leading topic, I
think, amongst the people thatthink about Texas.
See, the cowboys and the Alamois what comes to people's minds
when they think of Texas.
First off, I suppose, Maybecoming later, it'll be Landman
here in the next few years.
Everybody watches that all thetime.
But one thing aboutxasrevolution that I've always
(03:03):
thought gets short shrift isthis whole ador let's call it
adoration for the alamo.
Almost you know right, I don'tknow the daughters of the
republic of texas called it theshrine of texas liberty.
That comes about almost in areligious sense but that to me
always seemed to overshadow whatI think was a much more
(03:25):
consequential part of the TexasRevolution and that is the
Battle of San Jacinto, or, ifyou're a good gringo, battle of
San Jacinto, because the finalbattle of the Texas Revolution,
and I think it's that waybecause of the effect that it
had.
Of course, texas gainingindependence, that's a big thing
(03:45):
.
We're Texans it's a big thing,but it's a consequential battle
in the whole breadth of Americanhistory and I don't think
people realize that that it is avery important battle when you
talk about it in the wholebreadth of American history.
Speaker 2 (04:02):
Are we just saying that because we're Texas
historians?
Speaker 1 (04:04):
No, we're not saying that.
There are reasons why that isthe case, which is for the next
26 minutes or so.
We'll just cut.
Speaker 2 (04:13):
Okay, let's talk about that.
You're absolutely right.
We both teach Texas history andI'll ask my students Allegedly.
I'll ask my students.
I say, well, what do you knowabout the Alamo?
And everybody you know, theyraise their hands and they'll
give me some information aboutit.
I say, well, what do you knowabout San Jacinto?
(04:35):
And I'll just get blank staresand I'm sitting in a classroom
that's what?
Speaker 1 (04:40):
20 miles from the battle.
Speaker 2 (04:42):
I tell them, I in fact, fact, I've gone over and
opened the window, on thewindows that face to the east.
I said look straight over there.
Now you, you can't see itbecause there's buildings in the
way, but but it's flat right,so you almost could.
It's like living in love 60years ago.
You can almost see the sanjacinto monument from where we
sit.
We're on buffalo bayou, sanjacinto monuments at the end of
(05:05):
Buffalo Bayou.
Yes, you just look east, about20 miles, and you've seen that.
I tell them, you drove by aninterstate tenant and you've
seen that monument.
What do you think it means?
And they don't know.
Speaker 1 (05:21):
It's amazing, it's absolutely amazing to me that we
have forgotten all there is tothink about San Jacinto.
Speaker 2 (05:27):
But it's as you say, you know, the Alamo and the.
Our adoration and our, our loveof that story has overwhelmed,
I think, the landscape, it'slike those buildings that have
been put up right that you can'tsee the, the monument is, we
can't see San Jacinto because ofwhat people have built up
around the Alamo.
Speaker 1 (05:48):
The giant shadow cast by the Alamo.
Right, the giant shadow cast bythe Alamo.
That's a good book.
Title In the Shadow of theAlamo.
Speaker 2 (05:59):
Yeah, people don't realize that we're coming up
with gems on this program.
Speaker 1 (06:02):
That's right.
All 12 of the people that aregoing to hear this are going to
just be so enlightened.
It's unbelievable.
Speaker 2 (06:09):
All right.
So, scott, tell us You'rereally kind of more the expert
on this period.
I mean, living in Nacogdoches,you're surrounded by stuff about
the Texas Revolution.
So what happened on April 21st?
Speaker 1 (06:21):
1836?
Happened on april 21st 1836.
Well, texas, I guess, gainedtheir independence, I suppose on
that battlefield between uhbuffalo, uh, between buffalo bio
and uh the marsh reads on theother side, where sam houston
confronted the mexican army, uhfor the first and only time, uh,
when he was the commander ofthe texas uh army, that came
(06:42):
about.
That know, there's a lot ofspeculation about how that
battle came about and why theycame to be there, what Houston
was trying to do.
But what you can't speculate,you know, it was a, it was a
decisive route.
It was one of the most decisivebattles ever fought in American
history Because, in the sensewhen I say decisive, I mean
because it was such anoverwhelming victory by the
(07:06):
Texian forces.
The battle part of it, as faras the two armies engaging is
over within 18 minutes, which isan amazing amount of number.
Now, the killing went on forhours afterwards and the killing
, in that regard, was theTexians killing, basically
killing Mexican soldiers theycame upon and you know, some of
(07:27):
them they captured.
But the final statistics areoverwhelming About 600 Mexicans,
a little over 600 Mexicansoldiers killed, 200 Mexican
soldiers wounded and theycaptured over 700.
The whole force of about 1,500Mexican troops was accounted for
in those statistics.
Texans lost nine dead, 30wounded.
(07:50):
I mean that's a decisive battle.
That happened about that whenthey came on.
But you tell stories about itthat is unbelievable that you
hear about the Battle of SanJacinto and that 18 minute
coming across.
They caught the Mexicans bysurprise.
Santana obviously did notbelieve he thought the Texians
(08:13):
would attack on the morning ofApril 21st.
Both the armies had arrivedthere and pitched their camps on
the separate sides of theprairie there on the 20th.
The Texans had arrived theprairie there on the 20th.
The Texans had arrived late inthe afternoon on April 20th.
The Mexican army was alreadythere and Santa Ana was sure
that the Texans would attack onthe morning, because that's when
(08:36):
you attack is on the morning ofApril 21st.
But they didn't.
So he was convinced that well,I will attack them the next
morning.
If they're not going to do it,we'll just rest and I'll make
the attack the next morning, onthe 22nd.
But about 2 o'clock in theafternoon Houston ordered the
advance of the Texian soldiersacross the prairie and they
(08:57):
caught the Mexican armycompletely unaware.
Santa Ana had not sent outenough tickets to Texians.
Come across.
The grass was high enough wherethey could hide into it and
they were right on them whenthey actually surprised them and
the battle was enjoined Aftermost of the initial exchanges
(09:18):
came on and the Texans wereessentially rounding up Mexican
soldiers.
The killing was unbelievable inthat day and the Texian army was
enraged by what had gone on atthe Alamo, at Goliad, and they
were indiscriminately justkilling Mexicans.
They came across, they werekilling them as they were down
(09:41):
in the water trying to hide Imean literally like shooting
fish in a barrel.
They were killing prisoners.
They came across.
There's one story about a Texanbashing in the head of a young
Mexican drummer boy about 12years old, who's already had
both his legs broken, to killhim.
So it was very much of a.
There was a lot of rage on thatbattlefield that day, all taken
(10:05):
out, which we could parse thatand actually get into how that
is for many.
But on that day Santa Ana waseventually captured, of course,
and that led to him ordering theMexican army to leave.
I shouldn't have listened tohim, but he did the Mexican army
to leave Texas and Texasessentially gained independence,
if that's what you want to call.
(10:25):
What happened after that,although we can discuss how that
was on many occasions.
So there you go, on April 21st1836.
Speaker 2 (10:34):
All right, let's talk a little bit about this.
You had mentioned this lopsidedvictory and some of the
animosity that was held there.
The animosity that was heldthere and people kind of point
to that, especially in moderntimes talk about the racism and
this killing of unarmed orincapacitated Mexican soldiers,
(10:59):
some of them who were surrend orhad surrendered, and in fact
there are stories of some of theofficers and some of the, you
know, of the of the Texianofficers trying to stop the
killing and trying to sayNacogdoches is Thomas Jefferson.
Speaker 1 (11:15):
Rush tried to stop the killing of that young
Mexican boy that I mentioned,and the Texian soldier
threatened to kill him if hedidn't let him go ahead and go
through with it.
Speaker 2 (11:25):
Yeah, so you know there is, we talk about that.
But you know, as you said, thisbattle cry of remember the
Alamo, remember Goliad, you gotto understand, we've got to
understand, and I'm not you know, I'm saying, you know, saying
we should ignore that or paperover that.
(11:46):
But on the other hand, we don'twant to ignore that is that
there had been atrocities onboth sides and Santa Ana was
looked down upon by some of hisown soldiers, some of his own
officers, for the way he hadbehaved at those other battles.
Speaker 1 (12:07):
Well, I mean, what is it?
Three of the officers, or atleast two, uriah and Fili Sola,
would become opponents ofSantana political opponents of
Santana back in Mexico later on,and neither one of them, I
don't't think, respected Santanathat much.
On this, uriel was incensedessentially by the order that
(12:31):
Santana had given him that hewas to execute all the prisoners
that he'd taken after theBattle of Toledo Creek at Goliad
.
He was a good soldier and heunderstood that Santana was his
superior officer, so he carriedthat order out.
Speaker 2 (12:48):
But, it's hard to say it was the same way to write a
Goliad.
Speaker 1 (12:51):
Yeah, filosola was.
Yeah, filosola Urias.
At Goliad.
Filosola was with Santana atthat time.
That's Filosola, of course, wasItalian.
I love this story.
Our old mentor, cam Martinez,told me this story one time.
He said Filosola was Italianbecause he was a mercenary from
Italy.
And so Cam used to say you know, mexico?
(13:15):
Everybody says Mexico lostTexas.
Mexico didn't lose Texas, italydid.
Filosola should have notlistened to Santana continue the
war, should have not listenedto Santana continue the war.
But probably Filosola decidedto retreat because he didn't
want to be up there anyway,because he didn't support what
Santana was doing.
(13:40):
But yes, I mean atrocities.
You know war is.
You know they call it the fogof war, and it's kind of.
You know, we don't things get.
People believe certain things,I suppose, and certainly when
you talk about the mass killingsat San Jacinto after the battle
, certainly there's Americanracism towards the people of
Mexican descent.
It's fueling some of that.
(14:00):
There's also, though, somesense that they had been wrong
and that they, you know, youknow it's one of those things.
The Texians, I guess, thinkthey're fighting for
independence.
But if you look at it from aMexican perspective, these
people are committing treason,right.
And what's the penalty fortreason it's death Right.
(14:21):
So in Santa Ana's mind, Isuppose, and many Mexicans, if
they executed everybody at theAlamo and everybody at Golia,
they're just carrying out thesentence for treason for
revolting against the countryabout this.
So it's one of those situationswhere we can think of a lot of
things on both sides and come upwith the same answer.
Speaker 2 (14:41):
Well, I think one of the dangers and you know we were
always, you know, warned aboutthis idea of presentism.
You know this is what they callthe historian's dilemma is that
, you know, we look back at thepast and atrocities in war or
just bad behavior, and we tendto judge it, and we've got to
(15:02):
judge it in their own time frame, you know, and in the heat of
war, you know, thank goodnessyou and I have never been in war
, but you know you've got to.
I think that this probablyhappens.
It's not the things you want towrite stories about, or people
(15:23):
have written stories about muchin the past, and so, you know,
it reminds me of the old CivilWar.
That saying was it Sheridan orGrant maybe said that it's well
that war is so terrible, or wewould grow fond of it.
Speaker 1 (15:39):
It was actually Lee.
Lee said that.
Speaker 2 (15:40):
Lee said that.
So see, you're the militarystory, not me.
You're the military, sorry, notme, but this thing is that we
romanticize war and battles andwe realize we forget these are
human beings who are in stressand in terror and fear for their
lives, and we sometimes, inthose situations, do things we
(16:11):
may not do in more rationaltimes.
And it's easy for us as people,sitting in an easy chair and
you know, in an air conditionedbuilding, looking at documents
and saying, well, they werewrong about this, they did this
wrong.
It's hard to do that, it's hardto know when you're in the heat
of things.
Speaker 1 (16:22):
Well, sure, and you know, you know, I think,
something we perhaps don't thinkabout when we study these
things, particularly on thetexting side these guys are not
professional soldiers.
Speaker 2 (16:33):
This is another good point.
Speaker 1 (16:35):
They're militia members.
They're you know, they'revolunteers, which is probably
some of the whole thing of someof the officers trying to, you
know, bring about a sense oforder on the battlefield to
these soldiers that they were,by this point, they had overcome
(16:59):
by emotion and everything elsewhen they were doing what they
were doing.
That's what Santana does.
I remember Santana was apolitical animal and what he was
doing in Texas was that was apolitical act to stop any sort
of opposition to his dictatorialrule, and the best way to do
that is through fear, just likehe had done in Zacatecas before
he came to Texas.
I mean, the Texians should haveknown this is what he was going
(17:20):
to do, considering they knewwhat he, they knew what he had
done in Zacatecas.
On this, so, yeah, the sense ofthe battle was something else.
Speaker 2 (17:31):
And your comment there about these were not
trained soldiers for the mostpart and that some of the
officers were, and they wereappalled at the behavior of the
undisciplined person with arms,and that is something we don't
think about.
But this, that age of Jackson,this was across the military, uh
(17:55):
, and there are stories about itin histories of that period,
you know, and look at SamHouston.
I mean, he was the, he was thecommander of the army, in name
only you know just because ofthe, the, the, the, the
government has said okay, you'rethe commander, but nobody
listened to him.
Speaker 1 (18:11):
He, you know, he had, he had advised don't be here,
let's move out of here, and andthey ignored him because, uh,
they were more democraticallyinclined the leadership of the
texas revolution might be a goodcase study of how this is not
leadership when you look at howthis is a chaos that was going
on around that.
Speaker 2 (18:32):
Let's talk about, you know, let's talk about after
the battle.
I mean, certainly, you knowwe're happy at the way things
turned out.
I mean there was a lot, therewere a lot of problems.
I mean the discriminationagainst Mexicans in general
after the revolution continued,and we don't talk about that
(18:53):
very often.
But you know, we look at theMexican population, a lot of
people left as a result of therevolution.
But I want to get into whathappens later.
It wasn't at the battle thatthe independents was won and,
like I say, let's talk aboutthat in a little bit.
But what happened at velasco?
So a little bit further south,uh, on the coast, uh by freeport
(19:16):
today, of course, uh, santanawas captured.
Speaker 1 (19:19):
Uh, at the uh san francisco.
He was captured and thesentiment amongst these not
regular soldiers in the Texianarmy was that they wanted to,
you know, using their emotionsand whatever else to immediately
execute Santana.
Well, houston knew better thanthat, because he knew that this
was a viable chip, because whatHouston understood was probably
(19:40):
the soldiers didn't was thatessentially from the moment, but
the moment he was captured,because he was captured, santana
was no longer the president ofMexico, therefore he could not
issue.
He was also no longer thecommander of the Mexican army,
because you don't obey ordersfrom a captured commander.
(20:01):
But Houston understood that hewas a good political little chip
to use in negotiations and sowe had to keep him alive.
Uh, after David, uh G Burnett,the president, the interim
president of Mexico, shows up,they move Santana to Velasco to
get him away from people whowanted to kill him.
And even then they had to puthim on a ship out in the middle
(20:22):
of the of the bay off of Velascoto keep people from perhaps
kidnapping.
And they had Santana.
Eventually, they drew up twodifferent treaties, to some
extent, or two tenets to whatwould become the Treaty of
Velasco.
In the Treaty of VelascoSantana signs and it says that
(20:42):
Texas gets its independence.
And also Santana promises tohelp the United States.
I mean help Texas becomerecognized by the United States.
How they thought he could dothat, I don't know.
He's opposed, but the thingabout it is that we always
forget about the Treaty ofVelasco.
First off, santana signs thatunder somewhat of duress he's a
prisoner at that time.
That can't be valid.
(21:03):
Be valid.
But also mexico is.
Folks, I mean santana may havedissolved the, the, the states
and, and dissolved theconstitution of 1824 and
whatever, but mexico is still arepublic, that that operates
under basically the same rulesas the united states.
Right, a treaty is not validuntil the mexican congress
(21:23):
actually uh, authorizes thattreaty and votes on its
authorization.
And they refused to do so.
They did not.
The Treaty of Velasco is neverenforced as far as Mexico is
concerned.
So as far as Mexico isconcerned, texas does not get
its independence in 1836.
They recognize Texas as still asovereign part of their
(21:44):
territory.
And Mexico goes further, ofcourse, and says any attempts
they know what's going on by theUnited States to annex Texas,
we will consider that an act ofwar.
Did Texas get independencethere.
I don't know if they did or not.
Speaker 2 (21:59):
You know this was something, and Kyle, about seven
, eight years ago, within thepast 10 years, texas State
Historical Association meetingand I was talking to Steve
Harden and talking about theTexas Revolution and Steve goes
did Texas really get itsindependence after San Jacinto?
And I said, well, of course itdid.
(22:20):
He goes, really.
He goes, look at what happened.
And it wasn't until then thatyou know what happened and it
wasn't until then that you know,following this line of
reasoning, where you're going.
The treaty and the so-calledsecret treaty that Santa Ana
signed, that he was going to goback and help get this thing
ratified.
Never did.
You know, under the rules ofinternational law, as you're
(22:44):
saying, he was a prisoner of warwhen this was signed.
It isn't enforceable.
And then Mexican governmentdidn't ratify it.
So the treaty was basicallyignored.
And then, if we look at thehistory now I tell the students,
look at American history.
You know we had the Texas, theAmerican Revolution, and it was
(23:08):
the Peace of Paris.
You know the Peace Treaty itwas ratified.
It was accepted internationallythat the United States was
independent.
None of that ever happened forthe Texas Revolution.
And in fact in 1842, you getMexico, you know, sending costs
(23:32):
up a couple of times and he, asfar as San Antonio, right, and
you know he's, and he's, look,I'm just checking on the
territory, right, I'm, you know,checking things out.
Because, as out, because, asfar as mexico was concerned,
texas was still their colony.
Uh, no other country recognizedthat we were independent.
(23:56):
Now, we behaved, we actedindependently, we acted as if we
were independent, and mexicojust kind of left us the united
states doesn't always.
Speaker 1 (24:05):
the last act that jackson's doing is he's leaving
office in 1837 that herecognizes Texas.
You know, that's you know, andhe does that because he can't be
opposed, and that's one ofthese, these things that we
probably should get into is,again, this stuff is the effect
is that Texas and the results ofthe Battle of San Jacinto had
(24:26):
on American history and what'sgoing on in the United States.
Speaker 2 (24:31):
So this is 100% correct and you're right, it's
something we don't really focuson very much, and I might just
say that maybe I'm guilty ofthat too, whether you know.
(24:58):
How does it affect the UnitedStates?
I think these are great topicsthat historians could look at
and should look at, but again,is it because they're
overshadowed by the Alamo thatwe don't see that much?
Paul Lack did some writing onthe texas republic period, but,
uh, and he just came out with abook a couple of years ago, uh,
(25:21):
following up on it, but otherthan that, there really hasn't
that much not be gene that we.
Speaker 1 (25:28):
It's a disconnect.
I think.
As texas historians, we get toowrapped up in that.
To use our, our, our greattitle metaphor, we talked about
being in the shadow of the Alamosometimes, and when we talk
about the Texas Revolution, wekeep it so Texas-centric and we
talk okay, what's the result ofSan Jacinto?
(25:49):
Well, we go into the Republicof Texas.
That's the direct result thatwe talk about is the result of
San Jacinto.
What we forget is that, though,this is a larger cloth of
American history as well,because, first off, we say, oh,
this revolution started and runby Texans.
(26:10):
Well, there was no such thingas Texans.
Then, really, who was itstarted and run by Americans,
citizens of the United Statesthat had come to Texas.
Therefore, and why did theycome to Texas?
What's the whole reason for allthose who came to Texas?
They gained territory.
Right, that was the number onething.
(26:31):
They gained land.
They're looking from the momentthey get here, they're looking
this is, you know, expand, ifyou will, american influence.
We start talking about howmanifest destiny and the
expansion of territory is like agovernmentally sponsored
program, but in American historyit's not necessarily that way.
American people are out infront of their government quite
(26:53):
often doing these things and thegovernment's falling on behind.
Well, they're already there.
We better do something aboutthis.
So these are Americans who areadvancing American territory, if
you will, moving into Texas andstarting this war to gain
territory?
Yes.
To spread the institution ofslavery?
Yes, they did.
I happen to think that'ssomewhat of a secondary thing.
(27:15):
It's part of the TexasRevolution.
I will never say it's thenumber one thing of the Texas
Revolution, which puts me atodds with the number of current,
if you will, historians aboutthis.
I think it's part, but it is.
I call it and I do this inclass and I say it's the first
armed action to manifest destiny.
That's what the TexasRevolution and San Jacinto is,
(27:37):
because it expands.
It's expanding Americaninfluence, expanding American
territory.
That's why Mexico reacts theway it does.
We don't want these Americanshere, because guess what?
It's going to lead to theUnited States of America, right
at our doorstep.
And what are they going to wantto do?
Well, next thing, you know,they're going to want New Mexico
and Arizona and California.
(27:58):
Well, guess what happened.
As soon as that happened inTexas comes in, what's the next
step?
Well, we want all of it at thispoint.
And of course and that's in theMexican war, is the a war?
It's our first war of manifestdestiny.
It's war, it's our first war ofmanifest destiny.
Uh, it's, and they're all partof the same.
(28:18):
The mexican war doesn't start.
Probably I know we're notsupposed to ever be a historical
, but the mexican war doesn'tstart if there's not a san
jacinto, if there's not arepublic of texas.
Right, that's what starts themexican war.
And the mexican war doesn'tstart.
And you don't have the mexicansession.
But also, guess what?
That?
What does all that mexicansession start?
We start debating over the, the, uh, whole influence of slavery
(28:43):
in the west and it reignitesthe slavery held, the annexation
of texas in 1836.
In 1837, uh, when texas startstalking like, hey, we want to be
part of the United States, thenorthern congressmen stand up
and go, no, we're not goingthere because it's adding
another slave state and thewhole balance of power.
So that debate had been tampeddown somewhat after the Missouri
(29:07):
Compromise.
Texas reignited it all overagain and starts that in.
And that's why it's such afascinating thing and I think as
Texas historians we lose thatsometimes.
Speaker 2 (29:18):
Well, you know, then you need to go into the
discussion about the Knights ofthe Golden Circle, and that's
another group that has fallenoff out of the history books,
and these were people you know,and John C Calhoun was one of
them.
They wanted to expand slavery,and so I'm with you.
(29:39):
I don't think slavery was theprimary cause, but it was an
underlying theme because itaffected everything.
It affects so much, so yeah, Iagree.
It affects so much, so yeah, Iagree.
Speaker 1 (30:02):
Well, and these Americans?
Speaker 2 (30:03):
I think it's safe to say most of them almost all of
them come from the South.
Speaker 1 (30:06):
They just assumed that slavery would be legal.
They just assumed that it wouldbe legal and that's what they
brought in with them, and Mexicohad essentially accommodated
them every time on this.
Speaker 2 (30:14):
Well, it goes back to what you were saying earlier is
that, you know, most of themwere Texans and you're right,
Most of them were Southernerswho came in and what they wanted
to do, you know I think MaryTeran says this right they have
their constitutions in theirpockets and they, they wanted to
create a recreate.
(30:37):
They wanted to recreate thegovernments, the institutions as
they knew it, because that'swhat they had come from and I
think that's that's that's whathappens and was it?
Speaker 1 (30:49):
Mexico chose to populate Texas with the exact
Texas was the exact worst peoplethey could have thought of to
populate Texas, in that theybrought Americans in, in
particular Southern Americans,because there was and they were
in this area, there was nevergoing to be any assimilation.
These people were not going tobecome Mexican.
Speaker 2 (31:08):
Right, and that's what Mary Turenne says, right.
Speaker 1 (31:09):
That's right, and so he said it yeah.
Speaker 2 (31:11):
Yeah, that's in that report that that actually helps
start.
You know the conflagrationbecause there's a reaction to
that.
And then you get the law ofApril 6th 1830.
No more immigration, no moreslaves, and that was overturned.
Another thing that we're oftenmissing in our history books
(31:32):
that law was overturned, but itstarts the ball rolling.
Speaker 1 (31:36):
I think Absolutely, absolutely.
So there you go.
That's why we think and we talkabout San Jacinto, what we
should never forget.
Yeah, okay, it's significant inTexas history, it's very
significant in American history,and I'm talking American
history writ large.
Think about.
Have we ever thought about Gene?
Have you ever thought about theimportance and the place of San
(31:58):
Jacinto and the TexasRevolution in Mexican history
and how it affected Mexicanhistory?
I don't know.
I wonder how they teach that inMexico and what is the take on
that?
That's something I would loveto see somebody explore and
somebody explain to me aboutthat.
Speaker 2 (32:17):
Well, I think that's something that we'll have to do
at a different time, and weought to get somebody on here
who does that right, who teachesit from the Mexican point of
view Sure, that would beabsolutely A great idea, scott.
We're at the end and wenormally ask people what do they
know?
But we already know.
Speaker 1 (32:38):
We already know, we know nothing.
Speaker 2 (32:40):
We're like Sergeant Schultz and Hogan T Rose we know
nothing.
Well, very good.
Well, welcome back.
We're going to get the showback on course and set aside
some time to do some morerecording, so hopefully we're
going to get our shows out alittle bit more regularly, once
again every two weeks or so.
Scott, welcome back and good tosee you.
Speaker 1 (32:57):
Thank you and all our listeners.
Tune back in, Get back in thehabit of listening to us.
Thank you very much All right,have a great one.
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.