Politica Mexicana, Economia y Finanzas.
 
ÍndiceÍndice  SoporteSoporte  CalendarioCalendario  FAQFAQ  BuscarBuscar  MiembrosMiembros  Grupos de UsuariosGrupos de Usuarios  RegistrarseRegistrarse  Conectarse  AdministracionAdministracion  Viejo ForoViejo Foro  

Comparte | 
 

 Los defensores del Alamo.

Ver el tema anterior Ver el tema siguiente Ir abajo 
Ir a la página : Precedente  1, 2, 3, 4  Siguiente
AutorMensaje
ZaMaCoNa



Mensajes : 3505
Fecha de inscripción : 20/04/2010
Localización : aqui y que?

MensajeTema: Re: Los defensores del Alamo.   Sáb Jun 18, 2011 12:50 pm

Lo que yo entiendo que pasaba en los united gordo es que com siempre las diferentes corrientes (whigs, dems, reps, y todas las mezcolanzas) buscaban cosas diferentes, unos querian comprar mexico (y segun yo mandaron varias ofertas aparte de la de polk) y otros querian robarse todo el pedo, por eso derrepente se ve en la historia mayor y menor agresividad.
los democratas querian a como fuera lugar la expansion y los republicanos se daban mas su taco, por eso ves que ulisses grant, habiendo sido soldado en esa guerra, se expresaba asi de la guerra mexico americana.

este articulo esta interesante, me imaginoq ue el programa de ulisses grant que va asacar de neuvo pbs traera algo de eso, si mal no recuerdo el anterior hablaba igual del tema de la guerra .

Citación :
In 1844, President James K. Polk ran on a Democratic platform that supported manifest destiny, the idea that Americans were predestined to occupy the entire North American continent. The last act of Polk's predecessor, John Tyler, had been to annex the Republic of Texas in 1845. Polk wanted to lay claim to California, New Mexico, and land near the disputed southern border of Texas. Mexico, however, was not so eager to let go of these territories.

Polk started out by trying to buy the land. He sent an American diplomat, John Slidell, to Mexico City to offer $30 million for it. But the Mexican government refused to even meet with Slidell. Polk grew frustrated. Determined to acquire the land, he sent American troops to Texas in January of 1846 to provoke the Mexicans into war.

When the Mexicans fired on American troops in April 25, 1846, Polk had the excuse he needed. He declared, "[Mexico] has invaded our territory and shed American blood upon American soil," and sent the order for war to Congress on May 11.

The act was a questionable one. Many Northerners believed that Polk, a Southerner, was trying to gain land for the slaveholding South. Other Americans simply thought it was wrong to use war to take land from Mexico. Among those was Second Lieutenant Ulysses S. Grant. Although during the war he expressed no reservations about it, he would later call the war "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."

Despite arguments over whether the war was right, Americans had tremendous success on the battlefield. Young officers like Grant and Robert E. Lee, who would later lead armies against one another in the Civil War, had their first combat experiences in Mexico. Generals Zachary Taylor and Winfield Scott won a series of remarkable victories against the Mexican armies. This success was in spite of the fact that Mexican troops outnumbered the Americans in most cases. In September of 1847, after a masterful overland campaign, American troops under Scott captured Mexico's capital, Mexico City, and the fighting ended.

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo sealed the American victory in 1848. In return for $15 million and the assumption of Mexican debts to Americans, Mexico gave up its hold over New Mexico and California. The enormous territory included present-day California, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Colorado and Wyoming. Mexico also agreed to finally relinquish all of Texas, including the disputed area along the border. The U.S. Congress approved the treaty on March 10.

Although the Mexican War had been won, the conflict over what to do with the vast amounts of territory gained from the war sparked further controversy in the U.S. The question over whether slavery would spread to these new territories would drive North and South even further apart.

aqui esta el programa de grant
http://www.megavideo.com/?d=J04SDWKG

segun yo es el nuevo y no le he visto pero se ve muy bueno benjo, enjoy.
Volver arriba Ir abajo
Ver perfil de usuario
Titivilus



Mensajes : 2265
Fecha de inscripción : 29/04/2010

MensajeTema: Re: Los defensores del Alamo.   Sáb Jun 18, 2011 1:08 pm

Chamacona, tu compadre el Jarras tiene razon. Los casos de Texas y de el resto son totalmente distintos. Texas es un caso de demografia (colonos gringos entrando por decenas de miles al anio) y de las inmensas, infinitas pendejadas del senior Santa Anna, empezando por cambiar la consttucion de Federalista a Centralista.

El "Resto" estab en la mira de los destino_manifieststas y en el programa de gobierno de James K. Polk.

Canada tuvos sus escaramuzas territoriales con los U.S. of A. y las gano, como dice Jarramabides porque tenia ejercito y claridad conceptual y potencia que los apoyaba. Mas bien, los gringos querian tierra de la potencia Inglaterra, que nunca ha cedido un m2 sin derramar sangre.

Mexico? Mexico no sabia quien era, no sabia bien su dimension, estaba deshabitado practicamente en las provincias interiores (con excepcion tal vez de cachitos de Nuevo Mexico). Inicia la guerra ya varios estados Mexicanos se declaran neutrales. La Santa Madre Iglesia apoyaba a los gringos. Los "Polkos" se le rebelaron al Presidente. Santa Anna cuando ganaba batallas se retiraba (La Angostura). Cuando veia que si ganaba iba a tener que compartir la gloria, se retiraba (Padierna), y de preferencia, se dejaba derrotar (casi todas las otras). Las unicas batallas bien peleadas de esa guerra fueron en Monterrey, en Los Angeles y en Baja California, que los gringos no pudieron tomar.

Esa guerra y ese periodo son una ensenianza de inmediata aplicacion a nuestro presente. Nos esta pasando exactamente lo mismo, o sea estamos desunidos, peleandonos contra nosotros mismos, no sentimos el futuro como algo comun.

Lo nuestro es la desunion, la desorganizacion y el no saber para donde vamos. Hoy y en 1846.
Volver arriba Ir abajo
Ver perfil de usuario
ZaMaCoNa



Mensajes : 3505
Fecha de inscripción : 20/04/2010
Localización : aqui y que?

MensajeTema: Re: Los defensores del Alamo.   Sáb Jun 18, 2011 1:23 pm

Pepe los gringo si "invadieron" texas en 1812 (mas bien apoyaron una "revolucion"... llena de gringos....), desde entonces tenian la intencion de quedarse con todo el pedo pero las diferencias entre ideologias les amarraron las manos.

El pedo era que siendo texas española era mucho mas dificil que siendo mexicana, por eso se rajaron en el '12 y siguieron mandando embajadores muy bien diseñados para impulsar la independencia de mexico. Robinson era perfecto para el puesto, entre el y poinsett graficaron todo mexico para preparar la invasion futura, checa el libro de poinsett para que veas lo que realmente es.

Los tiempos se dan mucho por las diferencias que tenian en el congreso los gringos, acuerdate que los del norte lo ultimo que querian era que el sur se hiciera mas fuerte, los abolicionistaas no querian darle al sur miles y miles de hectareas donde seguir sus practicas esclavistas, esa es para mi la razon principal de que no se diera la expansion tan agresiva hacia aca hasta que llego a la presidencia un sureño democrata (Polk).

otra razon es que los gringos se estaban entrenando en las guerras en florida contra los indios seminoles (la segunda), los americanos no podian pelear dos guerras al mismo tiempo (en parte el que se rajaran en 1812 me imagino que fue que estaban dandose en la madre contra los ingleses).

habia muchos hilos y muchas manos moviendo la politica gringa pepe y muchas veces hacian las cosas para cuidar las apariencias, acuerdate que son hijos d elords ingleses y las apariencias son muy importantes (pinches cinicos), por ejemplo la mamada de reforzar los puestos en la franja del nueces/grande (osea construir, porque no existian) fue para provocar a mexico, estaba disenaido para darle la justificacin a los gringos ante los que estaban en contra en su mismo congraso, todo fue para cuidar las apariencias pepe.

los mapas son muy especificos en que la frontera era en el nueces, el tratao de velasco es una mamada para dejar abierta la puerta... silos texanso son texanos porque chingados mandaron a santa anna a washington??, lo hubieran dejado encadenaod en velasco y ya!, que no mamen los texanos, por mas que se sientan "texanos" siempre fueron americanos, es pura puta conveniencia.


aqui esta la resenia de la "invasion/revolucion" de texas en 1812 apoyados por el embajador de los gringos en la nueva espania.

Citación :
William Shaler, Early American Intelligence Agent in Spanish America

Americans rarely associate government agents with the founding fathers. William Shaler, was only one of several agents appointed by the President James Madison. A former merchant with extensive experience in Spanish America, Shaler was actively, if unofficially, involved in an invasion of Spanish Texas in 1812.

The Madison Government watched with interest as independence movements erupted over Spain’s colonial empire in the Americas. In the Winter of 1812, Mexican Bernardo Gutierrez, came to Washington seeking assistance with the rebel cause. After meeting with Secretary of State James Monroe, Gutierrez sailed for New Orleans, where Louisiana Governor William Claiborne introduced him to Shaler. The American agent, with Washington’s approval, paid for Gutierrez’ passage and accompanied him upriver to the town of Natchitoches, on the border between the United States and Spanish Texas in the Spring of 1812.

Gutierrez spent the summer recruiting a revolutionary force to invade Texas. Most of his recruits were Americans, including Lt. Augustus Magee, who resigned his American army commission to act a co-commander of the expedition.

On August 8, shortly after the War of 1812 broke out with Great Britain, Magee and Gutierrez crossed the Sabine River into Spanish Texas with 130 men and quickly captured the small garrison at Nacogdoches After defeating a Spanish army, estimated at 3,000 at Rosillo on March 29, 1813, the rebel army made a triumphant entry into San Antonio on April 1 and established the first Republic of Texas.

Shaler notified Governor Claiborne at least 3 ½ weeks before the invasion began, but U.S. officials made no effort to stop it. Not until after the Gutierrez-Magee expedition had departed did the Claiborne write to local military Commander James Wilkinson, asking him to squelch the expedition. Captain Waller Overton, U.S. commander of the garrison at Natchitoches, expressed surprise at Claiborne’s tardiness because the plans for the invasion had been so well known. In spite of Claiborne’s letter, men flocked across the border to join the invasion.
Read on

Shaler received no word from Washington until September 1, 1812. Responding to Shaler’s prior letter of July 12, Secretary Monroe, ironically informed him, “It will be proper for you to discountenance the measure as far as any opinion may avail.”[1] Shaler’s continued involvement, however, is documented by the letters he continued to receive from American officers involved in the invasion as well as from Gutierrez, reporting on the results of the invasion.

The triumphant rebellion soon began to unravel, when the Spanish Governor Manuel Salcedo, and several captured officers were brutally murdered. Despite his denial, many, including Shaler, believed that Gutierrez had given the order. A number of American officers resigned and the unity of the began to disintegrate.

Shaler demonstrated his influence by engineering the resignation of Gutierrez in favor his hand picked successor, Jose Alvarez de Toledo. But is was too late. On August 18, 1813, a Spanish force of about 1,800 soldiers defeated the rebels at the Battle of San Medina, the bloodiest encounter in Texas History. Antonio López de Santa Anna, future Mexican President and commander at the Alamo twenty three years later, fought with the victorious Spanish forces as a junior officer.

Whether U.S. involvement in the 1812 invasion of Spanish Texas reflected an early expression of America’s policy of “manifest destiny” is a matter of debate. William Shaler’s role in the incursion, however, placed him in a long line of intelligence agents associated with American support for the overthrow of sovereign governments in places such as Cuba. Nicaragua, Chile and Guatemala.


Volver arriba Ir abajo
Ver perfil de usuario
ZaMaCoNa



Mensajes : 3505
Fecha de inscripción : 20/04/2010
Localización : aqui y que?

MensajeTema: Re: Los defensores del Alamo.   Sáb Jun 18, 2011 1:38 pm

Titivilus escribió:
Chamacona, tu compadre el Jarras tiene razon. Los casos de Texas y de el resto son totalmente distintos. Texas es un caso de demografia (colonos gringos entrando por decenas de miles al anio) y de las inmensas, infinitas pendejadas del senior Santa Anna, empezando por cambiar la consttucion de Federalista a Centralista.

Para mi la gran diferencia entre lo que se vio en la invasion americana y lo que se vio en la revolucion texana fue que una se apoyo totalmente desde la presidencia de polk y la otra no, tuvieron que esperar hasta que salieron lo whigs para anexar texas y seguir con la expansion, Jackson era marrano pero no trompudo.\

La revolucion texana se "adelanto", por suerte se logro pero no habia un consenso en washingont hacia la expansion forzada.

Pero sigo sin entender porque los texanos mandaron su mejor baraja de cambio a los estados unidos.

yo creo que la pelea entre pro-abolicionistas y pro-esclavistas (sur y norte) es la que hace que se extiendan los tiempos, y con mucha razon ya que el crecimiento del sur acabo desatando la guerra civil.
Volver arriba Ir abajo
Ver perfil de usuario
benjolin
Administrador
Administrador


Mensajes : 3609
Fecha de inscripción : 13/04/2010
Localización : Quesque en mi chamba...

MensajeTema: Re: Los defensores del Alamo.   Sáb Jun 18, 2011 3:58 pm

Titivilus escribió:
Chamacona, tu compadre el Jarras tiene razon. Los casos de Texas y de el resto son totalmente distintos. Texas es un caso de demografia (colonos gringos entrando por decenas de miles al anio) y de las inmensas, infinitas pendejadas del senior Santa Anna, empezando por cambiar la consttucion de Federalista a Centralista.

El "Resto" estab en la mira de los destino_manifieststas y en el programa de gobierno de James K. Polk.

Canada tuvos sus escaramuzas territoriales con los U.S. of A. y las gano, como dice Jarramabides porque tenia ejercito y claridad conceptual y potencia que los apoyaba. Mas bien, los gringos querian tierra de la potencia Inglaterra, que nunca ha cedido un m2 sin derramar sangre.

Mexico? Mexico no sabia quien era, no sabia bien su dimension, estaba deshabitado practicamente en las provincias interiores (con excepcion tal vez de cachitos de Nuevo Mexico). Inicia la guerra ya varios estados Mexicanos se declaran neutrales. La Santa Madre Iglesia apoyaba a los gringos. Los "Polkos" se le rebelaron al Presidente. Santa Anna cuando ganaba batallas se retiraba (La Angostura). Cuando veia que si ganaba iba a tener que compartir la gloria, se retiraba (Padierna), y de preferencia, se dejaba derrotar (casi todas las otras). Las unicas batallas bien peleadas de esa guerra fueron en Monterrey, en Los Angeles y en Baja California, que los gringos no pudieron tomar.

Esa guerra y ese periodo son una ensenianza de inmediata aplicacion a nuestro presente. Nos esta pasando exactamente lo mismo, o sea estamos desunidos, peleandonos contra nosotros mismos, no sentimos el futuro como algo comun.

Lo nuestro es la desunion, la desorganizacion y el no saber para donde vamos. Hoy y en 1846.

No lo creo.

Con todo y lo jodido que estamos hoy, los historiadores de la epoca de Santa Anna se sorprenderian gratamente al ver el pais que hoy es Mexico. No habia esperanza alguna de que este pais tuviera futuro alguno sino como una estrella mas de la bandera de barras.

La perdida de esos territorios ante EEUU creo una unidad nacional que antes no existia. Hubieron bastantes intentos mas de agenciarse de territorios mexicanos, especialmente por filibusteros que consideraban -con cierta razon- terrenos "baldios".

Y precisamente por eso, el golpe dado a Mexico fue mas psicologico que economico o territorial. No se pierde lo que realmente nunca se ha tenido.

_________________
RETIRADO DEL FORO. NOS VEMOS EN OTROS ESPACIOS.

Smile Smile Smile Smile Smile Smile


El Benja´s Blog
**
Twitter
Volver arriba Ir abajo
Ver perfil de usuario http://lapolacaforo.blogspot.com/
eljarras



Mensajes : 2823
Fecha de inscripción : 15/04/2010

MensajeTema: Re: Los defensores del Alamo.   Sáb Jun 18, 2011 4:09 pm

benjolin escribió:
Titivilus escribió:
Chamacona, tu compadre el Jarras tiene razon. Los casos de Texas y de el resto son totalmente distintos. Texas es un caso de demografia (colonos gringos entrando por decenas de miles al anio) y de las inmensas, infinitas pendejadas del senior Santa Anna, empezando por cambiar la consttucion de Federalista a Centralista.

El "Resto" estab en la mira de los destino_manifieststas y en el programa de gobierno de James K. Polk.

Canada tuvos sus escaramuzas territoriales con los U.S. of A. y las gano, como dice Jarramabides porque tenia ejercito y claridad conceptual y potencia que los apoyaba. Mas bien, los gringos querian tierra de la potencia Inglaterra, que nunca ha cedido un m2 sin derramar sangre.

Mexico? Mexico no sabia quien era, no sabia bien su dimension, estaba deshabitado practicamente en las provincias interiores (con excepcion tal vez de cachitos de Nuevo Mexico). Inicia la guerra ya varios estados Mexicanos se declaran neutrales. La Santa Madre Iglesia apoyaba a los gringos. Los "Polkos" se le rebelaron al Presidente. Santa Anna cuando ganaba batallas se retiraba (La Angostura). Cuando veia que si ganaba iba a tener que compartir la gloria, se retiraba (Padierna), y de preferencia, se dejaba derrotar (casi todas las otras). Las unicas batallas bien peleadas de esa guerra fueron en Monterrey, en Los Angeles y en Baja California, que los gringos no pudieron tomar.

Esa guerra y ese periodo son una ensenianza de inmediata aplicacion a nuestro presente. Nos esta pasando exactamente lo mismo, o sea estamos desunidos, peleandonos contra nosotros mismos, no sentimos el futuro como algo comun.

Lo nuestro es la desunion, la desorganizacion y el no saber para donde vamos. Hoy y en 1846.

No lo creo.

Con todo y lo jodido que estamos hoy, los historiadores de la epoca de Santa Anna se sorprenderian gratamente al ver el pais que hoy es Mexico. No habia esperanza alguna de que este pais tuviera futuro alguno sino como una estrella mas de la bandera de barras.

La perdida de esos territorios ante EEUU creo una unidad nacional que antes no existia. Hubieron bastantes intentos mas de agenciarse de territorios mexicanos, especialmente por filibusteros que consideraban -con cierta razon- terrenos "baldios".

Y precisamente por eso, el golpe dado a Mexico fue mas psicologico que economico o territorial. No se pierde lo que realmente nunca se ha tenido.

Lucas Alamán en sus memorias se queja justamente de que no existía esa noción de México como nación, se queja amrgamente de ver como muchos habitantes del país celebraban las derrotas ante los EEUU y celebraban la ocupación, pero justamente ve una esperanza, vislumbra lo que mencionas, la posibilidad de crearse una unidad nacional, recordemos que durante la ocupación de la Ciudad de México, uno de sus mas grandes contrincantes políticos fue el que le dio asilo en su casa.

Yo siempre he pensado que las ciudades tienen un karma que nunca se va, yo siempre he sentido que Saltillo tiene un karma raro debido a sus acciones durante la ocupación estadounidense, Monterrey como menciona Titivilus, intentó realmente contener los ataques, aguantaron todo lo que pudieron, hubo combates sangrientos en las calles de la ciudad reminicentes a los de Stalingrado un siglo después, pero luego en Saltillo no hubo una verdadera defensa y por si fuera poco, recibieron a los estadounidenses como liberadores, les hicieron desfile, tengo fotocopias de varias cartas de varios soldados estadounidenses describiendo ese extraño episodio (las tienen en el museo de San Jacinto), les pareció de los mas raro.
Volver arriba Ir abajo
Ver perfil de usuario
Titivilus



Mensajes : 2265
Fecha de inscripción : 29/04/2010

MensajeTema: Re: Los defensores del Alamo.   Sáb Jun 18, 2011 8:59 pm

Bueno Benjolin, obviamente que muchas cosas son muy distintas hoy y en 1847. Obvio. Pero lo que no es tan distinto es el caracter de la sociedad. La desunion, la falta de vision, la incapacidad de tener un proyecto nacional mas o menos aglutinante. O dos, si quieres, pero que sean claros y que representen una vision de pais. La desorganizacion frente a grandes retos. Nos faltan grandes hombres (o viejas), estadistas, gente de envergadura. Cuando el lemita de Calderon durante su campaña empezo a ser "queremos un pais de ganadores" tuve la conciencia de la tragica situacion de seguir en manos de pendejos.

Eso mismo nos pasaba en el 1847.
Volver arriba Ir abajo
Ver perfil de usuario
ZaMaCoNa



Mensajes : 3505
Fecha de inscripción : 20/04/2010
Localización : aqui y que?

MensajeTema: Re: Los defensores del Alamo.   Dom Jun 19, 2011 9:18 am

Pepe y profe:
Desde el 37 los texanos se intentaron anexar a los united (no pues que republica tan chingona.......), solo que les toco un gobiero lleno de whigs que no la querian por dos razones: una posible guerra con mexico y darle mas fuerza a los estados esclavistas del el sur.

de la wiki:
Citación :

Initial Texan proposal

In August 1837, Memucan Hunt, Jr., the Texan minister to the United States, submitted an annexation proposal to the Van Buren administration.[3] Believing that annexation would lead to war with Mexico, the administration declined Texas’ proposal. After the election of Mirabeau B. Lamar, an opponent of annexation, as president of Texas in 1838 and the United States’ apprehension regarding annexation, Texas withdrew its offer.[4]

Failed treaty

In 1843, President John Tyler came out in support of annexation, entering negotiations with the Republic of Texas for an annexation treaty, which he submitted to the Senate.[5] On 8 June 1844, the treaty was defeated 16 to 35, well below the two-thirds majority necessary for ratification.[6] Of the 29 Whig senators, 28 voted against the treaty with only one Whig, a southerner, supporting it.[6] The Democratic senators were more divided on the issue with six northern Democrats and one southern Democrat opposing the treaty and five northern Democrats and ten southern Democrats supporting it.[6]

Una de las razones por las que Texas se "adelanto" en su independencia fue que ya venia desde mexico la corriente de la abolicion, en el 27 coahuila paso una ley prohibiendo la entrada de esclavos nuevos al estado, los terratenientes texanos no podian concebir sus tierras sin mano de obra gratis, ese era el poder del sur y sureños que eran no se podian dejar.

el problema era que el sur no tenia la fuerza necesaria en el gobierno americano para impulsar algo en texas, la oposicin era fuerte y el presidente no era afin, Jackson era mas de la idea de comprar texas (por eso mando a poinsett), su vicepresidente siguio como presidente y entrando rechazo la anexsion solicitada por texas y luego vinieron los whigs que tampoco coincidian con la idea, los sureños tenian wet dreams con texas pero tuvieron que esperarse hasta polk para poder realizar sus sueños.

Los esclavistas siempre quizieron texas, igual lo abolicionistas pero en diferentes condiciones y terminos para no hacer fuerte al rival, el tiempo que tomo fue mas por las luchas de poderes internos en los estados unidos que otra cosa pepe/profe, texas no se revlo porque tuvieran sueños de republica sino por que no era parte del plan quedarse sin esclavos, la guerra se adelanto por los esclavos pero el sur movia sus piezas desde el 35 para hacer de texas un estado americano.

solo checa al embajador que nos mandaron de los united desde que llego jackson al poder, el queria texas pero era de diferente hechura que polk, butler es uno de los embajadores mas culeros que nos han mandado

Citación :
Colonel Anthony Butler (KY) - 2nd Rifle Regiment
Lt colonel 28th infy 11 Mar 1813: Colonel 2nd Rifle, 21 Feb 1814: disbanded June 1816. [Chargé d'affaires to Мех. 12 Oct '29 to 36.]
Lawyer, soldier, and politician; was born in South Carolina, probably in 1787 in Clarendon County, and established a sizable plantation in Russellville, Kentucky. At the outbreak of the War of 1812 he was commissioned a lieutenant colonel of the Twenty-eighth United States Infantry, on March 11, 1813. On February 21, 1814, he was promoted to colonel of the Second Rifle Regiment. After discharge he served as a member of the Kentucky legislature for two terms, 1818-19, but failed in a run for governor of that state in 1820. Butler was a resident of Mississippi in 1829 when his friend President Andrew Jackson, appointed him to succeed Joel Poinsett as United States chargé d'affaires in Mexico City. Historian Justin H. Smith commented that Butler's only qualifications for the post "were an acquaintance with Texas and a strong desire to see the United States obtain it." He had been through bankruptcy more than once, spoke no Spanish, was ignorant of the forms of diplomacy, and "was personally a bully and a swashbuckler." Further, Smith maintained, Butler was "shamefully careless," unprincipled in his methods, and "openly scandalous in his conduct...In brief, he was a national disgrace." Sam Houston wrote of Butler in 1832, "Such men as he is, would destroy a country, but take my word for it, he will never gain one!"Butler was recalled to Washington early in January 1836 but remained in Mexico on his own authority and continued to report to Jackson on the actions and intentions of the Mexican government toward Texas. He at last returned to the United States in May 1836. He then took residence in Washington County, Texas, and in September 1838 was elected to the House of Representatives of the Third Texas Legislature. At the outbreak of the Mexican War he offered his services to Gen. Zachary Taylor, believing that his knowledge of the country would be useful. Butler moved to the North in 1847 or 1848. As a Mason he was grand master of Kentucky in 1812-13 and of Texas in 1840-41. In 1849 or 1850 he died on the Mississippi River attempting to save his fellow passengers from the burning wreck of the steamboat Anthony Wayne.

Los gringos querian texas pepe, habia planes, preparaciones y mucha inteligencia, mandaron cartografos, espias, agentes encubiertos y no sabes la cantidad de estudios que hicieron sobre mexico, mapas, analisis, etc de las posiciones mexicanas y muchas otras cosas.

Volver arriba Ir abajo
Ver perfil de usuario
eljarras



Mensajes : 2823
Fecha de inscripción : 15/04/2010

MensajeTema: Re: Los defensores del Alamo.   Dom Jun 19, 2011 9:39 am

Tu ves todo blanco o negro.

"Los gringos querían Texas", no todos y no de la misma forma, tan es así que fue una república por 9 años por que no la quisieron por 9 años. La historia, el pasado, el presente, no son blanco o negro, la vida no es blanco o negro,

"Los gringos querían Texas", querían muchos territorios, sin embargo, la independencia de Texas no fue obra de los EEUU, ni ayudaron, ni apoyaron como gobierno, tan es así que el disque Texian Army no valía para puras madres y si ganaron la única batalla que import´o, fue por suerte.

Pero ultimadamente, no vivas obsesionado con tu mundo de malos muy malos y de un México victima y de mexicanos victimados, un país que nace por medio de una guerra para expulsar al gobierno en turno, no puede quejarse si luego otra guerra expulsa a tu gobierno y otra mas te quita territorios.

A veces me harto de los 2 mitos mexicanos:

A) Los españoles destruyeron una cultura milenaria, matemáticos, científicos, médicos, los españoles violaron al país y por eso México no vale madres.

B) Pobre México, tan lejos de Dios y tan cerca de los EEUU, nos robaron la mitad del país, si no nos lo quitan, seríamos país del primer mundo.

El primer mito es pendejo por que mas del 90% de los mexicanos somos esos españoles que destruyeron esa supuesta cultura milenaria, los españoles que viven en España, los que están enterrados en España, esos nunca fueron a México, los que si fueron a México, tuvieron prole, y de esa prole salimos nosotros, nosotros somos lo que odiamos, somos el español violador y la india chingada.

El segundo mito es aún mas pendejo por que de los diferentes dueños que han tenido esas tierras, nosotros fuimos los que menos tiempo fuimos los dueños, tanto los nativos, los españoles y los estadounidenses la tuvieron e sus manos bastantes mas años que nosotros, sin mencionar que en ese tiempo las tierras cambiaban de manos como nosotros de calzones y que esos territorios eran mexicanos solo en papel, nadie querpia ir a vivir a ellos, sin población es dificil mantener territorios, así llegó Lorenzo de Zavala a Texas, llevando yucatecos, se rajaron y se regresaron a México, excepto el.

Edit: Es tan malo no conocer la historia como vivir obsesionado con el pasado.

Es malo no conocerla por que como dice el conocidísimo dicho, el que no conoce la historia está condenado a repetirla.

Es malo vivir obsesionado con el pasado por que por lo regular es para sentirte una víctima, te deja traumas, es la escusa para ser jodidos.

México vive con traumas por mitos que nosotros hemos creado, pudimos ser un imperio, pudimos ser grnadiosos, pero los españoles, pero los estadounidense, pobres de nosotros, los malitos nos arruinaron la vida y la de 40 generaciones, wah, wah, wah.
Volver arriba Ir abajo
Ver perfil de usuario
Titivilus



Mensajes : 2265
Fecha de inscripción : 29/04/2010

MensajeTema: Re: Los defensores del Alamo.   Dom Jun 19, 2011 10:02 am

Que tal...!
Yo, de acuerdo con Jarras!!!!
En los dos puntos eh? Shocked
Esencialmente, de acuerdo Jarras. Pocas cosas dan mas risa, perplejidad y algo de coraje que un bato de 1.80m de alto, piel blanca y pelo rizoso escupiendo mierda de Espania y refiriendose a ser Mexicano como si eso fuera sinonimo de ser Mazahua.

Asimilar en algun momento que somos la mezcla de indios y españoles y que Mexico, antes de la conquista, no existia, es algo que parece ser superior a las fuerzas de la SEP
Volver arriba Ir abajo
Ver perfil de usuario
Zorro Filoso



Mensajes : 880
Fecha de inscripción : 20/04/2010
Localización : Mexicali, México

MensajeTema: Re: Los defensores del Alamo.   Dom Jun 19, 2011 11:51 am

Zorry, pero esta 'wikileaks' siempre me ha llamado la atención acerca de la guerra Mexico-EEUU:

"For years afterward, veterans continued to suffer from the debilitating diseases contracted during the campaigns. The casualty rate was thus easily over 25% for the 17 months of the war; the total casualties may have reached 35–40% if later injury- and disease-related deaths are added. In this respect, the war was proportionately the most deadly in American military history."

Claro, era la época en que no había penicilina ni nada parecido.
Volver arriba Ir abajo
Ver perfil de usuario http://zorrofiloso.blogspot.com
Titivilus



Mensajes : 2265
Fecha de inscripción : 29/04/2010

MensajeTema: Re: Los defensores del Alamo.   Dom Jun 19, 2011 12:08 pm

Y habia paludismo, fiebre amarilla, colera, tifoideas...
Volver arriba Ir abajo
Ver perfil de usuario
Wally



Mensajes : 1609
Fecha de inscripción : 20/04/2010
Edad : 42
Localización : Tampico

MensajeTema: Re: Los defensores del Alamo.   Lun Jun 20, 2011 10:39 am

ZaMaCoNa escribió:

El unico original que tengo es una hermosura que me encontre en mi luna de miel, ahi fue cuando me enamore de los mapas y necesita ver porque:

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/18/zama.jpg/


¿Para qué buscaba Chamy un mapa en su luna de miel?

Volver arriba Ir abajo
Ver perfil de usuario
ZaMaCoNa



Mensajes : 3505
Fecha de inscripción : 20/04/2010
Localización : aqui y que?

MensajeTema: Re: Los defensores del Alamo.   Lun Jun 20, 2011 11:10 am

Pepe la independencia de texas claro que fue obra de los gringos, los "texanos" existen solo en el alucine de unos cuantos, por eso luego luego fueron a pedir chichi a los united para anexarse pero le sudo frio a jackson y a su sucesor, el que el gobierno en turno no fuera el que apoyaba el pedo no quiere decri que los gringos del sur (gringos tambien) no le metieran billete al pedo, no se trata de que sea blanco o negro pepe sino que un nutrido grupo de gringos le metieron billetes para generar que texas cabara con ellos, unos la querian por la buena y otros la querian a huevo.


Citación :

Pero ultimadamente, no vivas obsesionado con tu mundo de malos muy malos y de un México victima y de mexicanos victimados, un país que nace por medio de una guerra para expulsar al gobierno en turno, no puede quejarse si luego otra guerra expulsa a tu gobierno y otra mas te quita territorios.
y quien esta hablando de esto aqui pepe?
Citación :

Edit: Es tan malo no conocer la historia como vivir obsesionado con el pasado.
Es malo no conocerla por que como dice el conocidísimo dicho, el que no conoce la historia está condenado a repetirla.
Es malo vivir obsesionado con el pasado por que por lo regular es para sentirte una víctima, te deja traumas, es la escusa para ser jodidos.
México vive con traumas por mitos que nosotros hemos creado, pudimos ser un imperio, pudimos ser grnadiosos, pero los españoles, pero los estadounidense, pobres de nosotros, los malitos nos arruinaron la vida y la de 40 generaciones, wah, wah, wah.

Pepe no se si te has dado cuenta pero en todo el tema nunca ha salido el pedo de "pobrecitos nosotroooosss", no se ni para que lo traes, existe fuerte y se ha hablado de el en otros temas pero en esta discusion el pedo va hacia si los gringos propiciaron la independencia (y si quieres las dos incluyendo la de mexico) y te he traido mucha info que habla que si (a veces no los entiendo, si opino me mandan a la chingada, si traigo informacion igual me mandan a al chingada... pobrecito yo.... Sad )

El pedo de los 9 años que tanto te pueden no fue porque los texanos sean bien huevudotes o bien independentistas sino a la gente que estaba en washington, o era con un democrata o no se hacia, el pedo fue que jackson si le tenia miedo a una guerra con mexico en ese momento y su vice siguio con la misma idea, luego vinieron los wighs y texas se mordio un huevo (aunque taylor intento pero era demasiada la oposicon en el congres, de nuevo por el miedo a hacer mas fuerte al sur) pero desde tiempos de jackson se intento comprar texas, esa era la manera que los norteños medio aceptaban mientras los del sur manejaban otras formas como la colonizacion.

y de muestra una correspondencia entre jackson y butler del 29

Citación :

"Andrew Jackson to Anthony Butler, Washington Octbr. 18th 1829
....With this introduction, and the hints contained in my letter of the 10th, I confide much in your ability to conduct the negotiation for the purchase of Texas, which is very important to the harmony and peace of the two republics. Unless we obtain that Territory we shall be in constant danger of the jealousy which the nature of its population is so well calculated to create. Its inhabitants will make an effort to set up a free Government the moment they have the power, and we shall be charged with aiding this movement altho all our constitutional powers may be employed to prevent it. Keep these considerations constantly in view, and if Mexico understands well her true interest, they will prevail
you know the confidence I repose in you; & I am sure that you will endeavor to merit a continuation of it. your friend, & obt. sert. Andrew Jackson
...."In AJ's draft this paragraph reads:....and their own safety if it is considered will induce them to yield now in the present reduced state of their finance."pp. 498-499

Esa parte de "danger of the jealously wich the nature of its population is so well calculated to create" a mi me suena a la mentalidad sureña que a la larga llevo al pais a una querra civil, igual habla de que en el momento que puedan se van a independizar y de como hagan lo que hagan le va a caero el saco a los gringos porque obviamente el impulso de llenar de gringos texas venia de los sureños que deseaban esas tierras desde hacia ya rato.
Jackson sabia de la necesidad de acelerar algo con texas porque sabia que la tirada de los que la llenaron era separarla de mexico para llevarla a los americanos, no contaron con el apoyo de la presidencia pero si de los dineros de la gente del sur que los apoyo siempre, por eso se veian tan debiles y muy probablemente hubieran perdido la guerra pero eso no le quita que los gringos prepararon todo para obtenerla, sabian que ese era el primer paso para luego obtener californaia pepe.

el pedo es que como el presidente no los apoyo directamente para ti no existe el apoyo de los gringos, pero el apoyo de la gente del sur es imposible negarlo, incluso pepe el cabron de butler propicio el arresto de austin para sacarlo de la jugada, austin pensaba que texas podria ser un estado mexicano y buscaba mas que se le aceptara primero como estado a que se le diera la independencia y como esa mentalidad le estorbaba a butler pues lo quitaron facilmente del camino y lo alejaron de la politica texana el tiempo suficiente para cocinar una rebelion.
Y esto son palabras de austin pepe:

Citación :

I accompanied Colonel Austin to take a Box for the use of these ladies and their friends—on the way we conversed about different men, among others of Anthony Butler. With much warmth he remarked to me that "Butler had been the principal cause of his detention"—he did not tell me in what way, nor have I ever learned. Whether Butler's motive was private dislike, or whether he considered Col. Austin as an impediment to his schemes, I do not know—most likelyr both.

claramente butler queria fuera de la jugada a austin porque pensaba asi:

Citación :
Contemporaries who disagreed with his cautious policy of conciliating Mexican officials accused him of weakness and instability, but criticism did not cause him to abandon it. Casually discussing this subject in a letter of April 9, 1832, to his secretary, he wrote, "Some men in the world hold the doctrine that it is degrading and corrupt to use policy in anything....There is no degradation in prudence and a well tempered and well timed moderation." Until the passage of the Law of April 6, 1830, attempting to shut out emigrants from the United States, he believed that Texas could develop into a free and prosperous Mexican state, a goal that he sincerely desired. Passage of that law and continued political turmoil in Mexico certainly shook his confidence, but prudence forbade abandonment of the policy of outward patience and conciliation before Texas seemed strong enough to demand reforms and back the demand by force. Premature action might be fatal, or so he thought. He would have prevented the conventions of 1832 and 1833 if he could have had his way, but, since he could not, he went along and tried to moderate their demands. The same considerations caused him to oppose the Texas Declaration of Independence by the provisional government in 1835, while there was hope of winning the support of the liberal party in Mexico. In short, his methods varied with circumstances, but from the abiding aim to promote and safeguard the welfare of Texas he never wavered. As he wrote in July 1836, "The prosperity of Texas has been the object of my labors, the idol of my existence—it has assumed the character of a religion, for the guidance of my thoughts and actions, for fifteen years." Consciousness of heavy responsibility dictated his policy of caution and moderation and compelled him to shape his methods to shifting circumstances.

pepe dejate de mamadas, ya te traje la info de los primeros 3 embajadores gringos que trabajaron para provocar problemas para obtener a la larga tierra, el primero, un espia de primera, apoyo una "invasion" en texas a la nueva españa, el segundo era un declarado filibustero y cartografo aficionado que apoyaba las independencias de la nueva españa y un tercero que de boca d eun excelente historiador lo unico que tenai como calificacion apra ser embajador era ser amigo del presidente jackson, conocer texas de pasada y tener un deseo profundo de que esta formara parte de los estados unidos.
aparte te traje info de intentos de comprar texas, de intentos de anexarse a los united luego luego de haber obtenido su independencia y mas info sobre como el embajador americano trabajo hasta en contra d e los mismos texanos moderados.
la independencia de tejas se adelanto, el camino debio haber sido mas largo pero siempre fueron enfilados a ser americanos, siempre fueron oportunistas y sabian que su estatus de anexados les daba mas armas para presionar en washingoton (creo que por eso los moderados querian comprarla, le quitarian ese as bajo la manga), incluso hoy en dia siguen usando su pinche "texaniedad" para presionar o me vas a negar las ene conferencias que van para la nueva independencia de texas? nadmas salio bush y perdieron su vara en el gobierno y luego luego salieron con sus jotencias de agarrar sus chivas y salirse de los united, son una pinche bola de oportunistas pepe, andar justificando al peor presidente de los estados unidos solo por que su mama lo avento ahi es una verguenza.

y te digo como a priam: el pedo no va porque nos robaron y son la causa d etodos nuestros problemas, el pedo va que se dan mucho que son una republica y que son bien chingones y acabaorn haciendo lo mismito que todas las monarquias europeas: chingaron a uno mas debil para beneficio de ellos, lo que me caga es que se den golpes de pecho y digan que no es cierto que solo son una pinche bola de embusteros igualitos a irak cuando invadio kuwait o a rusia cuando invadio afganistan.. son vien pipis y gañas carnal, y lo pero es que tu les crees......
Volver arriba Ir abajo
Ver perfil de usuario
ZaMaCoNa



Mensajes : 3505
Fecha de inscripción : 20/04/2010
Localización : aqui y que?

MensajeTema: Re: Los defensores del Alamo.   Lun Jun 20, 2011 11:37 am

en esta pagina hay un chingo de info recolectada sobre militares gringos y en la biografia de butler hay mucho sobre el pedo mexico-eu, la mayoria de cartas entre los actores principales y algunos libros:

kilometrico pero muy interesante.

http://mymilitaryhistory.blogspot.com/2009/05/rifle-regiments-officer-sketches.html

Citación :

Colonel Anthony Butler (KY) - 2nd Rifle Regiment
Lt colonel 28th infy 11 Mar 1813: Colonel 2nd Rifle, 21 Feb 1814: disbanded June 1816. [Chargé d'affaires to Мех. 12 Oct '29 to 36.]
Lawyer, soldier, and politician; was born in South Carolina, probably in 1787 in Clarendon County, and established a sizable plantation in Russellville, Kentucky. At the outbreak of the War of 1812 he was commissioned a lieutenant colonel of the Twenty-eighth United States Infantry, on March 11, 1813. On February 21, 1814, he was promoted to colonel of the Second Rifle Regiment. After discharge he served as a member of the Kentucky legislature for two terms, 1818-19, but failed in a run for governor of that state in 1820. Butler was a resident of Mississippi in 1829 when his friend President Andrew Jackson, appointed him to succeed Joel Poinsett as United States chargé d'affaires in Mexico City. Historian Justin H. Smith commented that Butler's only qualifications for the post "were an acquaintance with Texas and a strong desire to see the United States obtain it." He had been through bankruptcy more than once, spoke no Spanish, was ignorant of the forms of diplomacy, and "was personally a bully and a swashbuckler." Further, Smith maintained, Butler was "shamefully careless," unprincipled in his methods, and "openly scandalous in his conduct...In brief, he was a national disgrace." Sam Houston wrote of Butler in 1832, "Such men as he is, would destroy a country, but take my word for it, he will never gain one!"Butler was recalled to Washington early in January 1836 but remained in Mexico on his own authority and continued to report to Jackson on the actions and intentions of the Mexican government toward Texas. He at last returned to the United States in May 1836. He then took residence in Washington County, Texas, and in September 1838 was elected to the House of Representatives of the Third Texas Legislature. At the outbreak of the Mexican War he offered his services to Gen. Zachary Taylor, believing that his knowledge of the country would be useful. Butler moved to the North in 1847 or 1848. As a Mason he was grand master of Kentucky in 1812-13 and of Texas in 1840-41. In 1849 or 1850 he died on the Mississippi River attempting to save his fellow passengers from the burning wreck of the steamboat Anthony Wayne.
His papers are preserved at the Barker Texas History Center,qv University of Texas at Austin. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Eugene C. Barker, "The Private Papers of Anthony Butler," Nation 92 (June 15, 1911). Francis B. Heitman, Historical Register and Dictionary of the United States Army (2 vols., Washington: GPO, 1903; rpt., Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1965). John H. Jenkins, ed., The Papers of the Texas Revolution, 1835-1836 (10 vols., Austin: Presidial Press, 1973). Justin H. Smith, The War with Mexico (2 vols., New York: Macmillan, 1919). Texas House of Representatives, Biographical Directory of the Texan Conventions and Congresses, 1832-1845 (Austin: Book Exchange, 1941). Amelia W. Williams and Eugene C. Barker, eds., The Writings of Sam Houston, 1813-1863 (8 vols., Austin: University of Texas Press, 1938-43; rpt., Austin and New York: Pemberton Press, 1970).
Handbook of Texas Online - BUTLER, ANTHONY (1787?–1849?)
- http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/BB/fbu63.html

Jackson’s minister, Anthony Butler, tried to bribe the Mexican government. Jackson called Butler a “scamp” but left him there. Mexico was insulted, and the negotiations went nowhere. - http://www.sagehistory.net/antebellum/topics/texas_mexwar.htm U.S. Special Diplomatic Agent to Mexico, 1829; U.S. Charge d'Affaires to Mexico, 1829-35. Burial location unknown. Recall requested by Mexican government, 21-Oct-1835 - wiki
---------
"1815. By the treaty of peace and amity between Great Britain and the United States, concluded at Ghent, Belgium, December 24th, 1S14, and signed by Lord Gambier, Henry Goulbourn and William Adams, on the part of Great Britain, and by John Qnincy Adams, James A. Bayard, Henry Clay, Jonathan Russell and Albert Gallatin, on the part of the United States (ratifications exchanged February 17th, and proclaimed February 18th, 1815), the post of Michilimackinac was again restored to the United States. On March 2Sth, Lieut-General Sir Gordon Drummond sent a despatch from York (now Toronto), Canada, to Lieut Colonel Robert McDouall, of the Glengarry Light Infantry Fencibles, commanding Fort Mackinac and Dependencies, announcing the restoration of peace between Great Britain and the United States. This despatch readied Mackinac May 1st, and of it Col. McDouall in a letter of May 5th, to Colonel Anthony Butler, 2d Rifles, commanding "Michigan Territory and District of Upper Canada," said, "this was the first official communication I had received from my Government, announcing the termination of hostilities and the restoration of the blessings of peace." Upon the receipt of the above despatch, Col. McDouall sent a detachment of troops to Drummond's Island to prepare for the removal thither, of the Mackinac Garrison. The efforts made at all times by Col. McDouall to protect American citizens and their property from the Indians, deserve mention. On the same day and by the same conveyance that brought General Drummond's despatch, Col. McDouall received a letter from Col. Butler, dated Detroit, April 16th, in reference to the reoccupation of Fort Mackinac by U. S. troops. Col. McDouall's reply, dated May 5th, was conveyed to Col. Butler by Lieut. Worley, of the Royal Navy. The details connected with the restoration of Fort Mackinac to the United States, and of Fort Maiden, Amhcrstbnr£ and Isle anx Bois Blanc to Great Britain, were arranged between Col. Anthony Butler, on the part of the United States, and Lient.-Colonel "W. W. James, of the British Infantry, on the part of Great Britain. The United States troops were withdrawn from Fort Maiden, Ainherstburg and Isle aux Bois Blanc, at noon on the first day of July. British troops, Col. McDonall in command, occupied Fort Mackinac until noon July l0th, when they were relieved by United States troops, consisting of two companies of Riflemen (Captains Willoughby Morgan and Joseph Kean), and half a company (Captain Benjamin K. Pierce's), of artillery, under command of Colonel Anthony Butler. These troops with supplies for six months, left Detroit July 3d, in four vessels (commanded by Lieut. Samuel Woodhouse, U. S. N)., viz.: the U. S. sloop of war Niagara, the U. S. schooner Porcupine, and two private vessels chartered for the trip. William Gamble, Collector of Customs for Mackinac, accompanied the troops. The British withdrew to Drummond's Island in the St. Mary's River, where they established a post. Colonel Butler immediately returned to Detroit, leaving Captain Willoughby Morgan in command at Fort Mackinac. Captain Morgan changed the name of Fort George to Fort Holmes, and for a short time garrisoned it with a small detachment, lie also appointed Michael Donsman, a resident citizen, Military Agent for Mackinac. Major Talbot Chambers, of the Riflemen, arrived at Fort Mackinac, August 31st, and took command, relieving Captain Morgan, who was ordered to Detroit. 1816. Two companies of Rifles left Fort Mackinac, under the command of Colonel John Miller, and established Fort Howard, at Green Bay, Wis."- Annals of Fort Mackinac, by Dwight H. Kelton, 1895
http://books.google.com/books?id=3DtFLp-Yy-0C&printsec=frontcover

Historical Sketches of the Late War, by John Thomson, 1816
http://books.google.com/books?id=SbcTAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover
http://books.google.com/books?id=WcxNJVKFTnUC&printsec=frontcover

"GEN ANTHONY BUTLER TO JACKSON Clarksville Nov 7 1815
Clarksville, Nov. 7, 1815.
"My dear General
"...Yet I am equally certain that the paramount motive in this case is my country's welfare to which all other considerations will be made to yield when an object so important shall engage my attention. Our country for some time past, as you know, has been unfortunately under the dominion of men who altho' extremely well fitted for the calm of peace were illy calculated to guide the affairs of the nation in war. The war we have just concluded, has to be sure, by a fortunate tho' late selection of leaders terminated honorably and gloriously for our arms. Yet the conduct of that war taken as a whole, proves most strikingly the proposition I laid down of the unfitness to rule us in time of war, either by providing means, or an independent selection of instruments best calculated to secure success and cover the nation with glory. The state of affairs in Europe call upon us to be prepared for every emergency, and requires most especially that a man should be placed at the head of our government whose firmness and judgment in deciding on measures, and whose boldness in execution, would unite the nation around him. Every man in the U. S. looks to you as this individual and whatever might be your private wishes on this subject you would owe it to your county as a patriot not to refuse the station if offered to you. .... In fine, should the peace establishment be augmented, and you can have me appointed with my former rank to any of the new regiments under your command, I would immediately accept. Write me the news of the Capitol and believe me respectfully and truly your friend. A. Butler"pp. 141-142
Andrew Jackson and Early Tennessee History, Volume 2, by Samuel Gordon Heiskell, 1921
http://books.google.com/books?id=LPqZ80I8pfgC&printsec=frontcover

"Washington Feb* 26th. 1817
Sir.
The bill pending before Congress for the admission of the western portion of the Mississippi Territory into the Union and for the establishment of a new Territorial Government has reached that stage which renders its result nearly certain."
Permit me therefore to recommend to your consideration Colo. Anthony Butler" as a Gentleman every way qualified to discharge the duties of Governor of the proposed Territory in a manner honourable to himself, and highly satisfactory to the people of the Territory and the Government of the Union. I owe my acquaintance with Col0. Butler to the events of the war in the North west. Twice during the most critical periods of that war he commanded at Detroit, and he commanded in such a manner as to give universal confidence to the people of a defenceless and exposed frontier. In all the essential requisites of an oflicer, I consider him fully equal to any, of the numerous band of able men, who during the recent war supported with such ability the standard of their Country.
As a civil officer, his strength of judgment, splendid acquirements and accomplished manners eminently qualify him for the office, which his friends are so desirous to see him fill. [Indorsement] Peby. 26. 1817
To the Secy of State
"The western portion of Mississippi territory was authorized, to form a constitution, Mar. 1, 1817, and the eastern portion was organized as Alabama territory. Mar. 3, 18817. (J. S. P.)
"A native of Kentucky; entered the service in 1813 as lieutenant colonel of the 28th Regt . He became colonel of the 2nd Rifle Regt . in Feb. 1814, and was honorably discharged June 15, 1815. He did not receive the appointment solicited. (J. S. F.)" p. 393
L CASS TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE , Historical collections, Volume 36, by Michigan Pioneer and Historical Society, 1908
http://books.google.com/books?id=FJoUAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover

"The [Kentucky] election of 1820 provided an opportunity for a referendum on relief. The gubernatorial candidates — Generals John Adair and Joseph Desha, Colonel Anthony Butler, and US senator William Logan....[Butler] a man so unprincipled that he later embarassed President Jackson with his corrupt behavior as minister to Mexico. Butler came in last... pp. 72-73
A Jackson man: Amos Kendall and the rise of American democracy, by Donald B. Cole, 2004

"To James Monroe, War Dept 14th Oct 1821
I must call your attention to the .appointment of an Inspector General and the extra compensation, which has been allowed to the officers detailed to perform duties in the several Depts, at the Seat of Government. An early decision is not of so much consequence in the latter, but it is desirable, that the Inspection should be made at an early period in the Southern Department of the Army. In addition to what, I observed formerly on the selection to be made, it is proper to state that Col Butler and his friends are dissatisfied with the place assigned him in the late arrangement of the Army, tho' I think without just cause and that he has intimated to Col Gadsden his intention to resign. I believe his case is the only cause of discontent remaining in that Dept of the Army, the transfer of Col Linsay to the Artillery, which prevented Taylor and Woolley from being razeed, and Cobb from being discharged has removed all of the others of which Gen1. Jackson complains. Whether the appointment of Col Butler to the place of Inspr. General would satisfy him and his friends, and whether if such would be the effect, it would, under all of the circumstances of the case be advisable to appoint him, may be worthy of some consideration.1
It was impossible to make a reduction without exciting some discontent, at the selections, but I believe, in the main, that no arrangement could have been made, which would have caused less; and of that which has been excited very little has been from just views of the subject." p. 200
VOLUME II CALHOUN CORRESPONDENCE, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the year 1899, p. 200
http://books.google.com/books?id=uixDbGUoSWMC&pg=PA200

"Anthony Butler to Andrew Jackson, Monticello, 4. Sept. 1826"pp. 203-204
"Anthony Butler to Andrew Jackson, Fleurissant, 17 May, 1827
...your adversaries have adopted a mode of attack so well calculated to wound the generous sensibilities of your nature by the assault on Mrs. Jackson.."pp. 320-321
The Papers of Andrew Jackson: Volume VI, 1825-1828, edited by Harold D. Moser and J. Clint Clifft, 2002
http://books.google.com/books?id=W1BQxwXAs6AC&printsec=frontcover

"Rip Raps Virginia 27 August 1829
Sir,
Col. Butler an old acquaintance and friend of mine proceeds to the Capital of Mexico..."p. 393
"Andrew Jackson to Anthony Butler, Washington Octbr. 10th 1829
P.S. The general instructions which will be forwarded by the Secretary of State, & handed over to you by Mr. Poinsett, you are at liberty to shew, very confidentially, and as a mere voluntary act of your own, to the President of Mexico, or other high functionaries of that Government. When you read them you will discover there is nothing said about the purchase of Texas-You are refered to the instruction sent out by you, to Mr. Poinsett, for your Government on that subject, and being left out of your general instructions, nothing but good can grow out of confidentially shewing to the President these general instructions as a mark of your own confidence in him. It is all important, that these instructions are shewn to them of your own mere will, & begging at the same time that it may not be known to us-but in such a manner as to induce a belief that it must be kept a profund secrete from your own government, as on that event, it would destroy you. When you have read this P.S. and my private letter you will burn them both, first, if you please, taking notes from them - not being accustomed to diplomacy these might be stolen from you & made a handle against this Government. A.J [Endorsed by Butler:] remarkable communication" pp. 487-488

"Andrew jackson to Vicente Ramon Guerrero
Private & Confidential
Washington City October 18th, 1829
Respected and dear Sir,
...Col Butler who will deliver you this, in the character of charge de affaires, is appointed with full powers to negotiate upon the many points of common interest to the two countries. I take this occasion -lined out in this unofficial form - to recommend him to you as the gallant commander of one of our Regts of infantry in the last war of the United States with great Britain, and as a soldier & citizen of the highest honor and respectability, well entitled to your confidence...."pp. 497-498


"Andrew Jackson to Anthony Butler, Washington Octbr. 18th 1829
....With this introduction, and the hints contained in my letter of the 10th, I confide much in your ability to conduct the negotiation for the purchase of Texas, which is very important to the harmony and peace of the two republics. Unless we obtain that Territory we shall be in constant danger of the jealousy which the nature of its population is so well calculated to create. Its inhabitants will make an effort to set up a free Government the moment they have the power, and we shall be charged with aiding this movement altho all our constitutional powers may be employed to prevent it. Keep these considerations constantly in view, and if Mexico understands well her true interest, they will prevail
you know the confidence I repose in you; & I am sure that you will endeavor to merit a continuation of it. your friend, & obt. sert. Andrew Jackson
...."In AJ's draft this paragraph reads:....and their own safety if it is considered will induce them to yield now in the present reduced state of their finance."pp. 498-499

The Papers of Andrew Jackson, Volume 7; Volume 1829
http://books.google.com/books?id=daEFkrxIKnkC&printsec=frontcover

"...Correspondence in the Butler Papers suggests strongly that Jackson was originally more amenable to bribing Mexican officials than je later indicated..."p.69
The diplomacy of annexation: Texas, Oregon, and the Mexican War, by David M. Pletcher, University of Missouri Press, 1973

"Gomez-Farias, Vice-president, was performing the duties of President, during the absence of Santa Anna from the Capital. He is no doubt one of the most disinterested Liberals in Mexico, but is at the same time as obstinate and stubborn as a mule. Whether influenced by others, or from his native jealousy of the citizens of the United States, I know not, but there is no doubt he believed he was serving his country by detaining Col. Austin in prison.
After his removal to the Diputacion, a general amnesty law for all political offences passed the Mexican Congress, and if I mistake not Colonel Austin's liberty was procured on account of this measure.10
Mr. Wilcocks was the guardian of two Mexican young ladies residing with their mother in the city. I was very intimate with this family, and introduced your uncle to them before he was imprisoned. He was particularly pleased with one of them, and went frequently to the house—he became a favorite not only with the family, but also with their immediate neighbours and friends. Among the latter, was a very sprightly young lady whose familyhad influence with Santa Anna. This young lady contributed both to his being set at liberty by giving bail, and subsequently to his final freedom. Not having it in his power to evince his gratitude by any important acts, your uncle endeavored by many
"He left the City on July 13, 1835, and returned to Texas by way of Vera Cruz and New Orleans, reaching Texas on September 1.
little attentions to make this lady and the family some return to manifest that he was sensible of the interest they had taken for him. Neither of these families were rich, therefore could not afford those extravagances which are so prized by young ladies of all nations. For the first time, an aeronaut was going to make an ascension and nothing else was talked of in Mexico— but the high price of a Ticket (I think $20) put it out of the power of many to witness it. I accompanied Colonel Austin to take a Box for the use of these ladies and their friends—on the way we conversed about different men, among others of Anthony Butler. With much warmth he remarked to me that "Butler had been the principal cause of his detention"—he did not tell me in what way, nor have I ever learned. Whether Butler's motive was private dislike, or whether he considered Col. Austin as an impediment to his schemes, I do not know—most likelyr both. Butler was also a visitor, and on friendly terms with the family to which I have alluded. Mr. Wilcocks at a subsequent period represented to his government that he, Butler, had made proposals of marriage, although at the time he had a wife living in the United States, to the same young lady, for whom Col. Austin shewed some preference, which fact was probably known to Austin, and contributed to his contempt for that base man." pp. 374-375
Recollections of Stephen F Austin, Southwestern Historical Quarterly, Volume 20, by Eugene Campbell Barker, Texas State Historical Association, University of Texas at Austin. Center for Studies in Texas History, 1917
http://books.google.com/books?id=jCAUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA369

"The potential senator spent the Christmas holidays in the city of Houston. Inured as he [Sam Houston] was to criticism, he may not have felt that the spirit of the season was greatly marred by an especially abusive letter which he received from Anthony Butler. Butler, seeting with accumulated bitterness, threatened to check Houston's career by revealing information, long in his possession, that Jackson was not a Houston supporter and admirer. The timing would indicates that Butler meant to use his information to defeat Houston's ambitions for the senate. Houston's Christmas Day reply, after a "leisurely perusal" of his "gift of the season," was a classic in sarcasm addresses to one whose name was "synonymous with infamy" but who was "one of the most intelligent, amusing, and agreeable scoundrels" he had ever known."..." p. 165
"Sam Houston, the Great Designer, by Llerena Friend, University of Texas Press, 1954
http://books.google.com/books?id=8eGx_UxZs-QC&printsec=frontcover

"In view of Poinsett's unpopularity, the Mexican government determined to ask for his recall, its wishes being communicated to Van Buren on October 17." The United States government had already determined upon the recall and on the previous day had prepared a note informing Poinsett that his mission was at an end. It was not despatched, however, until after Montoya presented his request.12
The mission was offered to General James Hamilton of South Carolina, but because of domestic engagements, he was unable to accept,13 and Colonel Anthony Butler of Mississippi was selected as Poinsett's successor. He had already been despatched to Mexico for the purpose of assisting in the negotiations for Texas. Van Buren 's letter of introduction read:
Colonel Butler has made himself well acquainted, by actual examination, with the territory in question, its streams and localities. In the belief that he deserves your confidence, and that he may be useful to you in the negotiation by supplying you with facts which might not otherwise be within your reach, he has been instructed to observe your directions in regard to his stay at Mexico, and his agency in the matter whilst there.'*
Butler was appointed charge d'affaires in October; his instructions presented a resume of the diplomatic intercourse with Mexico and warned him against falling into the errors of his predecessor.....
Butler's conduct does not appear to have been such as would raise either him or his government in the opinion of the Mexicans. James S. Wilcocks, the United States Consul in Mexico City, preferred charges against him '' to show that the said Butler is unworthy of and a disgrace to the office he now holds, and ought to be recalled by his Government." He charged him with immorality, seduction, usury, refusal to pay debts, assault, interference with the consular duties, and lastly,
for being a mean and despicable character; inasmuch as he himself has confessed that, before the election of General Andrew Jackson for President of the United States of America, he was in favor of Henry Clay, Ksq., a candidate for that office; and seeing that General Jackson was likely to gain the election, he left Mr. Clay's party and went over to that of the General—a base, sordid and dishonorable act.70
Butler was informed of these charges by the Secretary of State, that he might make such explanations as he could. Without taking the trouble to investigate or waiting for Butler's defense. Jackson decided to dismiss Wilcocks; six days later the charges were sent to Butler and he was asked to find a suitable person to fill the position.71
In October Butler wrote to Jackson advising the military occupation of Texas by United States troops...The same month he again suggested to the President that several hundred thousand dollars be used in bribes. Jackson replied that he had no intention of bribery and advised Butler to be cautious.72
In February, 1834, Butler again expressed his opinion that bribery was the only means of acquiring Texas. A month later he urged that the United States take forcible possession, and suggested that he be placed as chief officer of the territory. On the back of the letter Jackson wrote:
A Butler. What a scamp. Carefully read. The Secretary of State will reiterate his instructions to ask an extension on the treaty for running boundary line, and then recal him, or if he has received his former instructions and the Mexican Government has refused, to recal him at once.73
It would appear from this that Jackson was following a straight course and that his motives were entirely above reproach, but a shadow of doubt is thrown upon the case when the fact is taken into consideration that the "scamp" was not recalled for over a year. Jackson was thoroughly aware of his worthlessness; if the President's motives had been sincerely open, the minister should have been recalled as soon as possible." pp. 104-105
A history of the western boundary of the Louisiana Purchase, 1819-1841, Volume 2, by Thomas Maitland Marshall, 1914
http://books.google.com/books?id=l363ei31ILoC&printsec=frontcover


"Jackson, in July, 1843, long after his presidency, received a letter from Anthony Butler, referring to charges just made against him in a Whig pamphlet, and asking the general to sustain him. Butler had been Jackson's minister to Mexico, where, in 1834, he made special effort to procure a peaceable transfer of Texas to the United States, for $5,000,000, advising that out of this fund a certain part should be devoted to bribing Mexican officials (notably Santa Anna) to sign a treaty of cession. Butler now claimed that President Jackson had sanctioned and then angrily denounced the proposed bribery, and then in an oral conversation had signified his willingness, provided the affair was managed without his own cognizance. Jackson in reply roundly denounced Butler as a scamp, and his statement as a tissue of falsehoods. Jackson's disapproval of bribery by his minister may well be believed; but sure it is that Butler's dispatches from Mexico, proposing in a translated cipher precisely such a course, were duly read by the President and placed among his private papers instead of the public archives, and that Butler continued the negotiation, though in vain. Jackson was always strong and sweeping in his asseverations, but in the concentration of immediate purpose he sometimes forgot past facts..."p. 220
The Jackson and Van Buren Papers, The Atlantic Monthly, Volume 96, by Philip Gengembre Hubert
http://books.google.com/books?id=AlkCAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover


"Butler's negotiations.—In these three ways, therefore, first, by commercial intercourse, then through fear of the Russian advance, and lastly by the opening up of the overland routes of communication, California gradually became more than a passing name to the people of the United States.81 It was not, however, until 1835 that this government, influenced largely by the representations of commercial interests, made its first attempt to secure the harbor of San Francisco.82
This early negotiation for the purchase of California was closely interwoven with the contemporaneous negotiation for the acquisition of Texas, forming indeed, simply a minor part of the larger project. Anthony Butler, a man eminently unqualified for any position of trust, was sent to Mexico in 1829 to carry out a scheme for the purchase of Texas which he himself had probably suggested,88 succeeding Joel R. Poinsett, the American minister who was recalled at the request of the Mexican government. For six years Butler was left free to work his will, so far as he was able, with the Mexican officials, and to discredit both himself and his government.
From the first, Butler's communications to the State Department began to hint at bribery as the best means of accomplishing his purpose, and soon were openly advocating it.84 Early in June,
The statement is not infrequently made that the purchase of California was attempted by Clay when Secretary of State under Adams. See, for example, Xiles' Register, IXVIII, 211; speech of Charles J. Ingersoll, Jan. 19, 1847. Appendix to Congressional Globe, 29 Cong., 2 sess., 128; Bancroft, XIII, 322-323. Whoever may have written this volume of Bancroft could scarcely have known the contents of volume XX, 399-400, of the same series, or of H. Ex. Docs., 25 Cong., 1 sess., No. 42, which he cites as authority. The boundaries for which Poinsett was instructed to negotiate included no territory west of the Colorado south of the 42d parallel. Clay to Poinsett, March 25, 1825. H. Ex. Docs., 25 Cong., 1 sess., No. 42, p. 6; same to same, March 15, 1827, Ibid., 9. See also Memoirs of John Quincy Adams with portions of his diary from 1795 to 1848, edited by C. F. Adams (Philadelphia. Lippincott. 1877), XI, 349.

"The plan, dated August 12, 1829, is in the Van Buren MSS., Library of Congress; see also Jackson to Van Buren, Aug. 12 (Ibid.), and Jackson's draft of Aug. 13. According to Reeves, the official instructions, dated Aug. 25, were carried by Butler to Poinsett. Jesse S. Reeves, American Diplomacy under Tyler ami Polk (Baltimore. The Johns Hopkins Press. 1907). 65-67. For a complete estimate of Butler and his career in Mexico, the reader is referred to George Lockhart Rives, the United States and Mexico, 1821-1848 (New York. Charles Scribner's Sons. 1913), 1, 235-261. It is perhaps well to add that the present article was in manuscript before Rives's exhaustive work was issued from the press. I have not been able, therefore, to avail myself of its contents as freely as I could have wished.
"Butler has suggested to a Mexican official that the United States is capable of "devising ways and means" of relieving the embarrassment of the treasury (Butler to Jackson, Feb. 23, 1832, Jackson MSS., Library of Congress) ; Jackson thinks Butler's suggestion "judicious" and one that may "lead to happy results" (Jackson to Butler, April 19, Ibid.). Butler believes the use of half a million dollars to put certain personages in the "right humor" will bring speedy conclusion of the treaty (Butler to 1834, he asked to return to the United States on the ground that a personal interview with the President was highly important, and that after it he could return to Mexico to be much more useful to his government.85 Having finally secured Jackson's consent to his request, Butler landed in New York in the early part of June, 1835, with a still more extensive scheme of bribery in his head than any he had so far suggested, and in his pocket a note signed by Hernandez, a priest standing close to Santa Anna.
On June 17 the returned Minister addressed a letter to the Secretary of State, John Forsyth, and enclosed the note from the Mexican priest. In this Hernandez had promised to bring about a cession of the desired territory provided $500,000 were placed at his disposal "to be judiciously applied."20 In the accompanying letter Butler assured Forsyth that the plan, if followed, would result not merely in the acquisition of Texas but eventually in the dominion of the United States "over the whole of that tract of territory known as New Mexico, and higher and lower California, an empire in itself, a paradise in climate . . . rich in minerals and affording a water route to the Pacific through the Arkansas and Colorado rivers."87
This matter met with cool response from the President.88 Nevertheless, after an interview with Butler he allowed him, at his earn
Jackson, Oct. 28. 1833, lbid.) ; Jackson warns Butler against employing corrupt means (Jackson to Butler, Nov. 27. Ibid.) : Butler insists that "resort must be had to bribery." or "presents if the term is more appropriate" (Butler to Jackson, Feb. 6, 1834. Ibid.). Later Butler writes McLane that ''bribery and corruption" are the sole means of bringing the negotiation to a successful issue. (Butler to McLane, MS., State Department.) Some of these letters are mentioned by Rives.
Butler to Jackson, June 6, 1834. Jackson MSS.; same to same, Oct. 20 (Ibid.). It is interesting to note that Butler thought his negotiations for Texas had been thwarted by Stephen F. Austin whom he charged in a letter to McLane with being "one of the bitterest foes to our government and people that is to be found in Mexico." Butler to McLane, July 13, 1834. MS., State Department.
"Butler to Forsyth. June 17, 1835 (MS., State Department). See also Rives, as cited, I,'257-258.
"Butler to Forsyth, June 17 (quoted also in Reeves, 73-74).
"It is endorsed, "... Nothing will be countenanced to bring the government under the remotest imputation of being engaged in corruption or bribery ... A. J." See also Adams, Memoirs, XI, 348; and Rives, I. 258.

est solicitation, to return to his post in Mexico.80 Before Butler left, however, the suggestion he had thrown out with regard to "higher California" received additional impulse from another source. On August 1, William A. Slacum, a purser in the United States Navy, wrote a letter to the President which, according to Adams, "kindled the passion of Andrew Jackson for the thirtyseventh line of latitude from the river Arkansas to the South Sea, to include the river and bay of San Francisco, and was the foundation of Forsyth's instruction to Butler of 6 August, 1835."40

These instructions mentioned by Adams give the first official attempt of the United States to secure from Mexico any part of her territory on the Pacific. The chief object, as expressed by Forsyth, was to obtain possession of San Francisco Bay which had been "represented to the President"41 as "a most desirable place of resort for our numerous vessels engaged in the whaling business in the Pacific, far superior to any to which they now have access."43 No definite sum which Butler was authorized to offer was specified in the dispatch, but Adams places it as $500,000.48 It should also be noted that Forsyth t.rpressly disclaimed any desire to secure territory south of Sair Francisco.44
It may be added that Butler's presence there was desired neither by Mexicans nor American residents. John Baldwin to Forsyth, Vera Cruz, Nov. 14, 1835. MS., State Department. Miscellaneous Letters." pp. 12-15

Early Sentiment for Annexation of California , Southwestern Historical Quarterly, Volume 18, Texas State Historical Association, Herbert Eugene Bolton, University of Texas at Austin. Center for Studies in Texas History, 1915
http://books.google.com/books?id=lR8UAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA331

"The Butler Papers And A Supplement To The Austin Papers.—Some years ago Colonel Guy M. Bryan, the nephew of Stephen F. Austin, gave the University of Texas the Austin Papers. This rich collection contains the history, as yet unwritten, of the Anglo-American colonization of Texas. Now Mr. Guy M. Bryan, Jr., of Houston, and Mrs. Emmett L. Perry, of Bay City, have increased the obligation of the University to their family by another gift. This consists of certain papers of their great-uncle which were not included in the former gift, of the papers of Colonel Anthony Butler, who was charge d'affaires of the United States at the City of Mexico from 1829 to 1836, and of many rare books, pamphlets, magazines, newspapers, and clippings which deal with the history of Texas.

The additional Austin papers are: a bound account book, covering the years 1825 to 1836, with many of the entries—some of which are of considerable historical and biographical importance— in Austin's own writing; an unbound book of about one hundred pages containing field notes of surveys in Austin's colonies: and fourteen plats of various portions of Austin's several colonies. The Butler Papers may be divided roughly into two classes: (1) diplomatic correspondence, and (2) personal papers. In the diplomatic correspondence there are many dispatches from the State Department at Washington, signed by Secretaries Van Buren, McLane, and Forsyth; copies of many of Butler's notes to the State Department; correspondence between Butler and the Mexican Foreign Office; and finally a number of autograph letters from President Andrew Jackson to Butler. Most of the diplomatic correspondence is prior to 1834. Copies of substantially all of the correspondence with the State Department are to be found at Washington in the department archives and at Mexico in the records of the American Embassy, and copies of the correspondence between Butler and the Mexican Foreign Office are likewise to be had in the Embassy records; but it goes without saying that the possession of autograph copies is of great importance to the University. Perhaps the most valuable documents are the letters of President Jackson. There are nineteen of them, all dealing with the question of the purchase of Texas from Mexico by the United States. There are copies of some of them in the Jackson Manuscripts in the Library of Congress, but some of them appear to be unique. The personal papers give us many important glimpses into the history of Texas and of the United States from 1828 to 1846. Among them are letters from Joel R. Poinsett, General Zachary Taylor, Lucas Alaman, and from many interesting Texas characters of whom we do not know too much, for example Ben Fort Smith and Padre Muldoon. The letters from Poinsett, of which there are thirteen discuss chiefly general political news, with some emphasis on the secession of South Carolina...."p. 331
The Quarterly of the Texas State Historical Association, Volume 14, by Texas State Historical Association
http://books.google.com/books?id=lR8UAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA331#v=onepage&q&f=false

Stephen F. Austin And Anthony Butler: Letters from the Historical Collections of the Rosenberg Library, Galveston, Texas, J. M. Winterbotham, Reprinted from the Mississippi Valley Historical Review Vol. XI, No. 1 June, 1924, 1924

Austin was in debt to Butler (who he knew dating back to 1815) for more than $6,000 from an ill-fated Missouri lead-mining venture. p. 205
O P Q signed letters p. 293
"I have never in all my life known so bad, and base a man as Butler."p. 294
Stephen F. Austin: Empresario of Texas, by Gregg Cantrell, 2001

O. P. Q. LETTERS. The O. P. Q. Letters were two letters, dated January 28 and February 8, 1834, intended to incite the colonists in Texas to insurrection in protest against the arrest and imprisonment of Stephen F. Austin in Mexico. They were written anonymously by Anthony Butler, who, as minister of the United States, was trying to buy Texas and believed that insurrection might induce Mexico to sell. The first was addressed to "Don B. T. A."-Branch T. Archer. The second may, or may not, have been directed to the same address. Both were signed "O. P. Q." Copies of the originals were given to Col. Juan N. Almonte, who visited Texas on an inspection trip in the summer of 1834, and by Almonte forwarded to the government in translation. The originals and the English copies have disappeared. The letters characterized Austin's arrest as a cowardly act of "an ignorant, fanatical and arrogant race" and described Almonte's mission as a cynical attempt to placate the Anglo settlers in Texas. Despite their shrill tone and the worsening political climate, however, the letters apparently caused little excitement in Texas, largely because leading colonists distrusted Butler and because Austin had written letters urging the colonists to remain tranquil. Although initially skeptical, Almonte became convinced that Butler was the author of the letters and suspected that he might be acting on secret instructions from the United States government. In July Almonte wrote to the secretary of foreign relations in Mexico City recommending that his government request Butler's recall. Mexican authorities, however, failed to take action, and Butler was not recalled until the following year, and then only because of President Andrew Jackson's displeasure with his handling of affairs.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Eugene C. Barker, The Life of Stephen F. Austin (Nashville: Cokesbury Press, 1925; rpt., Austin: Texas State Historical Association, 1949; New York: AMS Press, 1970). Helen Willits Harris, "Almonte's Inspection of Texas in 1834," Southwestern Historical Quarterly 41 (January 1938).
Handbook of Texas Online- O.P.Q. letters
http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/OO/emo1.html

"Austin had disliked Butler ever since l829, when Butler had made him pay every last cent of an old debt he owed Butler, plus interest..."
Papers Concerning Robertson's Colony in Texas: ...by Malcolm Dallas McLean, 1983

"...In 1828 Stephen F. Austin wrote that Butler was an "unprincipled man" and that Austin anticipated serious difficulties with him. Butler demanded Austin to pay him five or six thousand dollars, expecting returns from the later years of the partnership. In 1835 Austin referred to Butler as the "worst enemy I have in Mexico," and some in Mexico believed that Butler was instrumental in prolonging Austin's imprisonment. Butler also blamed Austin for influencing the Mexican government to refuse his attaempts at securing the cession of Texas to the United States....Butler's failure, according to historian Andreas Reichstein, was due to his conflict of interests. He was simultaneoulsy ambassador for the United States and an agent for variousland companies." p. 45
New Orleans and the Texas Revolution, by Edward L. Miller, 2004
http://books.google.com/books?id=LzZrOWnENDwC&printsec=frontcover

Conspiracy Thesis
"Jackson, Anthony Butler and Texas," by Richard Stenberg, in Southwestern Social Science Quarterly, XIII, Dec. 1932. (p. 221?)
"The Texas Schemes of Kackson and Houston, 1829-1836" by Richard Stenberg, in Southwestern Social Science Quarterly, XV, Dec. 1934.

"...As a substitute, the President sent Anthony Butler. Now Jackson had made some pretty ghastly appointments in his time but perhaps few were as spectacularly bad as Butlers. Once inside Mexico this fast-stepping expansionist engineered one shady deal after another to snatch Texas for his chief. He tried bribery, blackmail, loan-sharking - all to no avail. When he suggested that the President seize eastern Texas by force and place him "at the head of the country," jackson wrote on the back of the dispatch: "A. Butler: What a scamp." Although the General mouthed pious sentiments about honesty in the negotitations he did nothing to restrain his minister who was as corrupt a negotiator as this nation ever employed in its foreign service. Butler was allowed to remain as minister for nearly seven years - perhaps in the hope that one of his frauds would work and plop Texas into the lap of the President...."p. 211
Andrew Jackson, by Robert Vincent Remini, 1969
http://books.google.com/books?id=dRsjLOXPN94C&printsec=frontcover

Joe Gibson, " 'A. Butler: What a Scamp!'" Journal of the West 2, 1972, 235-247

"A Diplomatic Disaster: The Mexican Mission of Anthony Butler, 1829-1834," by Quinton C. Lamar, Americas 45, July 1988, 1-18

"Anthony Butler (1774-1848): What a Scamp! Anthony Butler served two terms in the state legislature in South Carolina "p. 105
Saints, scholars & scoundrels: an American family story, by John Graham Cook, 2001

"not content with the damage already done, Butler tarried for two years, among other things, challenging the Mexican secretary of war to a duel and threatening to cane and whip him in public. He is also alleged to have molested Mexican women. When ordered to leave the country, he had the effrontery-as well as the good sense- to request an armed guard to escort him to the border."p. 174
From colony to superpower: U.S. foreign relations since 1776, by George C. Herring, 2008
http://books.google.com/books?id=fODT-qOVoiIC&printsec=frontcover

"Butler was even more aggressive in his pursuit of annexation than Jackson and at one point suggested bribing the Mexican government. ("A. Butler: What a scamp." Jackson wrote on one of Butler's letters.) It is possible-and perhaps probable - that Butler was simply taking the latitude that Jackson himself seemed to suggesr. "This must be an honest transaction," Jackson had written Butler when describing his duties as envoy, but he went on to say: "I scarcely ever knew a Spaniard who was not the slave of avarice, and it is not improbable that this weakness may be worth a great deal to us, in this case."...Butler told Jackson, the Mexican leader said that he "would in due season chastise us...Yes, sir, he said chastise us." ...an allusion to 1812, Santa Anna said he would "march to the capital" and "lay Washington city in ashes, as it has already been once done." p. 316
American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House, by Jon Meacham, 2009
http://books.google.com/books?id=Ru6O7-Pc_NMC&printsec=frontcover
Volver arriba Ir abajo
Ver perfil de usuario
benjolin
Administrador
Administrador


Mensajes : 3609
Fecha de inscripción : 13/04/2010
Localización : Quesque en mi chamba...

MensajeTema: Re: Los defensores del Alamo.   Lun Jun 20, 2011 2:42 pm

Zorro Filoso escribió:
Zorry, pero esta 'wikileaks' siempre me ha llamado la atención acerca de la guerra Mexico-EEUU:

"For years afterward, veterans continued to suffer from the debilitating diseases contracted during the campaigns. The casualty rate was thus easily over 25% for the 17 months of the war; the total casualties may have reached 35–40% if later injury- and disease-related deaths are added. In this respect, the war was proportionately the most deadly in American military history."

Claro, era la época en que no había penicilina ni nada parecido.

Titivilus escribió:
Y habia paludismo, fiebre amarilla, colera, tifoideas...

Bueno, si revisamos la historia militar, no fue hasta la segunda mitad del siglo XIX donde hubo una revolución armamentista derivada de la industrial y la batalla de Solferino en Italia que inspiro al nacimiento de la Cruz Roja y el primer Convenio de Ginebra.

Antes las armas eran tan ineficaces que realmente era el combate cuerpo a cuerpo, la moral y las enfermedades las que definían regularmente el bando ganador. Muchas de las muertes eran por infecciones y heridas mal atendidas. No había tampoco un cuerpo profesional de socorristas dedicado a la atención de los heridos.

_________________
RETIRADO DEL FORO. NOS VEMOS EN OTROS ESPACIOS.

Smile Smile Smile Smile Smile Smile


El Benja´s Blog
**
Twitter
Volver arriba Ir abajo
Ver perfil de usuario http://lapolacaforo.blogspot.com/
ZaMaCoNa



Mensajes : 3505
Fecha de inscripción : 20/04/2010
Localización : aqui y que?

MensajeTema: Re: Los defensores del Alamo.   Lun Jun 20, 2011 3:05 pm

Los caballos benjo, se te olvidan los caballos, eran el tanque de las guerras antiguas.
Volver arriba Ir abajo
Ver perfil de usuario
benjolin
Administrador
Administrador


Mensajes : 3609
Fecha de inscripción : 13/04/2010
Localización : Quesque en mi chamba...

MensajeTema: Re: Los defensores del Alamo.   Lun Jun 20, 2011 4:36 pm

Y las pikas / bayonetas eran los RPG´s.



Agrego a mi comentario anterior:

Por eso eran tan importantes los "sitios" a una plaza determinada. No eran las balas las que destruian al enemigo, era el hambre y las enfermedades.

_________________
RETIRADO DEL FORO. NOS VEMOS EN OTROS ESPACIOS.

Smile Smile Smile Smile Smile Smile


El Benja´s Blog
**
Twitter
Volver arriba Ir abajo
Ver perfil de usuario http://lapolacaforo.blogspot.com/
Titivilus



Mensajes : 2265
Fecha de inscripción : 29/04/2010

MensajeTema: Re: Los defensores del Alamo.   Mar Jun 21, 2011 6:35 am

Bueno, pero en la guerra del 47 ya se habian inventado los caniones.

Benjo, controla al Zamacona, no? Siguiente cosa nos va a poner escaneado las 1300 paginas del informe sobre la guerra de Winfield Scott...
Volver arriba Ir abajo
Ver perfil de usuario
ZaMaCoNa



Mensajes : 3505
Fecha de inscripción : 20/04/2010
Localización : aqui y que?

MensajeTema: Re: Los defensores del Alamo.   Mar Jun 21, 2011 10:54 am

Tambien tengo la transcripcion del diario de Pike profe,lo posteo? Very Happy

disculpe profe, me prendi, pero es que esa recopliacion del cabron de butler era genial, ese chavo tiene recolplaciones de varios del ejercito americano que valen la pena, neta que tanto que leer y tan poco tiempo.

Pero profe me tienen que aceptar que hay algo mas que "se revelaron los super huevudos texanos" en la independencia de texas, el jarras ya les creyo todos los cuentos que sacan glorificando sus cochinadas, hay mucha gente atras y un interes mas claro que el agua de el gobierno gringo, algo muy marcado entre ambos bandos del sur y del norte para, cada quein a su manera., obtener texas.

el pedo es que como ellos no se ponian deacuerdo la independencia se fue dando por abajo del agua y despacito, pero lea un rato lo de butler para que vea quien fue una de las piezas mas importantes en el ajedrez que se dio entre mexico y eu.

pero me disculpo de nuevo, me prendi grave y es que ese blog esta kilometrico y lo de butler es solo un pedacito que no podia hacer alguna referencia que pudieran seguir... sooooorrryyyyyyyyyyy!!!!!!
Volver arriba Ir abajo
Ver perfil de usuario
benjolin
Administrador
Administrador


Mensajes : 3609
Fecha de inscripción : 13/04/2010
Localización : Quesque en mi chamba...

MensajeTema: Re: Los defensores del Alamo.   Mar Jun 21, 2011 11:23 am

Titivilus escribió:
Bueno, pero en la guerra del 47 ya se habian inventado los caniones.

La artilleria al igual que los rifles tenian pesima efectividad hasta muy corta distancia.

Fue hasta finales de siglo que hubo una verdadera revolución armamentista que mejoro el desempeño, la precision y por ende las tacticas de guerra.


_________________
RETIRADO DEL FORO. NOS VEMOS EN OTROS ESPACIOS.

Smile Smile Smile Smile Smile Smile


El Benja´s Blog
**
Twitter
Volver arriba Ir abajo
Ver perfil de usuario http://lapolacaforo.blogspot.com/
samboy_is_back



Mensajes : 677
Fecha de inscripción : 14/06/2011

MensajeTema: Re: Los defensores del Alamo.   Mar Jun 21, 2011 2:10 pm

Para Picas estoy yo.Picaflor.


Última edición por samboy_is_back el Sáb Mayo 12, 2012 12:56 pm, editado 1 vez
Volver arriba Ir abajo
Ver perfil de usuario
ZaMaCoNa



Mensajes : 3505
Fecha de inscripción : 20/04/2010
Localización : aqui y que?

MensajeTema: Re: Los defensores del Alamo.   Mar Jun 21, 2011 3:04 pm

Yo difiero con el gordo, los cañones si cambiaron cabron la manera de hacer guerra, con la llegada de ellos poco a poco se fueron acabando los sitios a castillos y a ciudades fortificadas, de no ser por ellos gordo hoy igual y seriamos musulmanes.
todavia los rifles no les veo mucha utilidad al principio, creo que un arquero llegaba a ser igual de eficiente que un arcabucero y hasta mas pero los cañones si le vinieron a poner en su madre a la seguridad de muchos, fue tan impactante como las primeras caballerias o los primeros carros de guerra que le dieron a sus respectivos "inventores" victorias antes imposibles.
yo creo que despues de los caballos los cañones de hernan cortes fueron la segunda arma mas importante que traian, les dio una ventaja psicologica y una facilidad para entrar a donde fuera.

creo que definitivamente revolucionaron cabron la guerra.
Volver arriba Ir abajo
Ver perfil de usuario
benjolin
Administrador
Administrador


Mensajes : 3609
Fecha de inscripción : 13/04/2010
Localización : Quesque en mi chamba...

MensajeTema: Re: Los defensores del Alamo.   Mar Jun 21, 2011 4:40 pm

Claro que revolucionaron la guerra macizo.... 3 siglos antes. Dienton

Ubicate chami, estamos hablando del siglo de Napoleón.



Doh!

_________________
RETIRADO DEL FORO. NOS VEMOS EN OTROS ESPACIOS.

Smile Smile Smile Smile Smile Smile


El Benja´s Blog
**
Twitter
Volver arriba Ir abajo
Ver perfil de usuario http://lapolacaforo.blogspot.com/
eljarras



Mensajes : 2823
Fecha de inscripción : 15/04/2010

MensajeTema: Re: Los defensores del Alamo.   Mar Jun 21, 2011 5:27 pm

ZaMaCoNa escribió:
Tambien tengo la transcripcion del diario de Pike profe,lo posteo? Very Happy

disculpe profe, me prendi, pero es que esa recopliacion del cabron de butler era genial, ese chavo tiene recolplaciones de varios del ejercito americano que valen la pena, neta que tanto que leer y tan poco tiempo.

Pero profe me tienen que aceptar que hay algo mas que "se revelaron los super huevudos texanos" en la independencia de texas, el jarras ya les creyo todos los cuentos que sacan glorificando sus cochinadas, hay mucha gente atras y un interes mas claro que el agua de el gobierno gringo, algo muy marcado entre ambos bandos del sur y del norte para, cada quein a su manera., obtener texas.

el pedo es que como ellos no se ponian deacuerdo la independencia se fue dando por abajo del agua y despacito, pero lea un rato lo de butler para que vea quien fue una de las piezas mas importantes en el ajedrez que se dio entre mexico y eu.

pero me disculpo de nuevo, me prendi grave y es que ese blog esta kilometrico y lo de butler es solo un pedacito que no podia hacer alguna referencia que pudieran seguir... sooooorrryyyyyyyyyyy!!!!!!

Chamy, yo no me creo nada, ni los cuentos color de rosa oficialista de cualquier país, ni las teorías conspiratorias mafufas.

El único aquí que se cree cosas por que le laten, eres tu, no presumo de ser objetivo, nadie lo es, pero tu rayas en lo macro mega non plus ultra subjetivo, como muestra tu comentario:

Citación :
sacan glorificando sus cochinadas

¿Cochinadas?, ¿neta?, ¿ese es tu término técnico?, no friegues con cochinadas, así como no veo como cochinadas lo realizado por Alejandro III de Macedonia (alias Alejandro Magno), ni lo realizado por Xerxex I de Persia, ni lo realizado por Napoleón, tampoco lo veo como algo glorioso, lo veo como lo que fueron, acciones normales de un imperio o de quien quiere un imperio.

Tan pendejo el que se cree los cuentos de hadas, como el que a huevo quiere creer cualquier conspiración y no hace caso a lo que refuta su teoría y le da demasiada importancia a lo que apoya su teoría, por lo regular el que gusta de creer en cualqueir cosnpiración lo hace por que le parece abominable creer que bastantes cosas sucedan por mero accidente, le es abominable el creer que no existe un verdadero control de todo lo que sucede.

Como te dije Chamy, no digo que EEUU no quisiera Texas, no digo que no hubiera buscado Texas después de no haberse dado la independencia, lo que digo es que creer que lo de 1836 fue un complot de los EEUU es querer hacerse pendejo, sin contar que tu quieres ver a un país como si fuera una persona, los EEUU querían esto, querían lo otro, buscaban aquello, un país es un ente que cambia bastante dependiendo las circunstancias, pero pasemos la conspiración.

Nos quieres vender que por años los EEUU conspiraron, movieron los hilos cual titiriteros, mandaron agentes infiltrados, cartógrafos seudoespías, apoyaron, instigaron y dirigieron la independencia ¿y por que las cosas se apresuraron lo máximo que logró tanto plán fue un pinche ejército tercermundista mal entrenado, mal equipado y mal dirigido?

¿Lo mejor que logró tanto pedo fue una bola de rancheros y campesino dirigidos por gente como James Fannin que tuvo que dejar West Point sin graduarse por que reprobó y tenía demasiadas faltas?, era tan inepto que en su batalla contra José de Urrea, Urrea le dió una santa madrina y le dió 3 o 4 clasesitas de como se dirige un ejército.

¿Gente como William Travis?, un abogado cuya experiencia militar fue ser soldado en la milicia (no el ejército, la milicia, voluntarios) de Alabama y que terminó en Texas por que su esposa le pidió el divorcio.

¿Gente como Sam Houston cuyo única experiencia militar fue la de soldado y luego teniente en la guerra de 1812?, nunca sabremos si era o no un buen militar, nunca dirigió una sola batalla en la guerra de 1812 y la única batallo en que dirigió en Texas duró minutos por que no lo esperaban, le funcionó a la perfección la treta, pero nunca sabremos como hubiera luchado en una batalla normal.

¿Neta la gran conspiración solo logró un ejército que perdió las batallas de San Patricio, de Refugio y de Coleto en 1 solo día, 3 días y solo 2 días respectivamente?

José de Urrea los destruyó sin despeinarse, sin perder muchos hombres, la batalla de el Alamo duró bastante por que esa no la dirigió Urrea, esa la dirgio su Alteza Serenísima, y a pesar de esa fiasco (la batalla de el Alamo fue un fiasco, Santa A. perdió demasiados hombres, le tomó demasiado tiempo), los "Texans" no tenían con que ganar esa guerra mas que con la divina providencia, si Santa A. no hubiera querido quitarle los reflectores a Urrea Texas no se pierde, inclusive, luego de perder San Jacinto su Alteza Serenísima, Urrea tenía a su mando 2,500 hombres, suficiente para acabar con Sam Houston, pero la lluvia en East Bernard y que Filizola (cuñado de Santa A.) decidió seguir las ´´ordenes de su cuñado y capitular, Texas no se pierde.

¿Esa es tu gran conspiración?, no friegues, cuando quisieron darle en la madre a México no hicieron planes balines de años, le entraron a los fregasos y nos dieron en la madre ganando todas las batallas, ¿y me quieres decir que Texas lo hicieron bien lento, de forma balina y luego se tardaron 9 años en anexarse Texas?, ¿para taparle el ojo al macho o que pedo?

¿Cochinadas?, che Chamy y tus traumas cabrones, pobresitos de nosotros los mexicanos, nos hicieron cochinadas, son bien malosos, hubieras sido un imperio, fue trampa, cochinos, cacos, malandrines, truhanes, wah, wah, wah, ni son cochinadas, ni fu algo glorioso, fue lo que fue hace ya casi 2 siglos, Texas no fue mexicana ni 20 años y lleva siendo estadounidense mas de 170 años, mas los 9 que fue independiente ¿y la sigues llorando?, si tan solo los españole sno hubieran llegado a destruir nuestra cultura milenaria, seriamos además chingones. Rolling Eyes
Volver arriba Ir abajo
Ver perfil de usuario
Contenido patrocinado




MensajeTema: Re: Los defensores del Alamo.   Hoy a las 5:48 am

Volver arriba Ir abajo
 
Los defensores del Alamo.
Ver el tema anterior Ver el tema siguiente Volver arriba 
Página 2 de 4.Ir a la página : Precedente  1, 2, 3, 4  Siguiente
 Temas similares
-
» Alan Morton Dershowitz se une al panel de abogados defensores de los Rosenthal
» Gobernador entregó nombramientos a jueces, fiscales y defensores oficiales
» CHICHE DUHALDE EN MORENO MAÑANA VIERNES.
» Maldigo a los defensores del derecho a la vida
» La UCR se debate entre los dialoguistas y los defensores del Grupo A

Permisos de este foro:No puedes responder a temas en este foro.
La Polaca  :: DEBATE :: Historia.-
Cambiar a: