Did the US culture bomb Texas away from Mexico?

[Azale]

And slavery, notably absent from the constitution of 1824, played no part? I think the texans desire to join with the US if independence wasn't viable must have also played a part as well, no?

Edit: Are u also implying that the white settlers were not cultural distinct from Mexicans? That's a pretty big part of my culture bomb analogy.

Slavery was outlawed by the Constitution of 1824, but the settlers worked around it by converting their slaves into perpetual indentured servants. They knew what they were getting into when they went to Tejas.

They were different from the Mexicans culturally, but is America the only country allowed to take on different ethnic groups without being "culture bombed"? Mexico had been home to all sorts of ethnic groups, social stratification, political ideologies, etc.

The white settlers struck out on their own due to fear of Santa Anna and then joined the US because the Republic of Texas was broke and constantly in danger of a Mexican reconquest. The fledgling country even had important foreign representation and one can imagine a British protectorate emerging without vigorous US attempts to annex the Republic. It's not like the situation of white settlers in the Kingdom of Hawaii.

So it wasn't a culture bomb that loosened Texas from Mexico, it was poor leadership and political tyranny from Mexican leaders.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Slavery was outlawed by the Constitution of 1824, but the settlers worked around it by converting their slaves into perpetual indentured servants. They knew what they were getting into when they went to Tejas.

They were different from the Mexicans culturally, but is America the only country allowed to take on different ethnic groups without being "culture bombed"? Mexico had been home to all sorts of ethnic groups, social stratification, political ideologies, etc.

The fact that they stubbornly kept their slaves in spite of the law kind of proves their cultural 'Americanness'. I'm also pretty sure it has a lot to do with their desire to sucede from Mexico.

I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean with the bolded sentence.

 

[King Kalmah]

The fact that they stubbornly kept their slaves in spite of the law kind of proves their cultural 'Americanness'. .

maybe it proves a desire to have others work for you.Which has been seen throughout time and the world...Egypt,Russia,Persia,Rome,Dutch,French and English come to mind...Slavery...or stubbornness was never uniquely American,but we admire your attempt...lol

 

[Azale]

The fact that they stubbornly kept their slaves in spite of the law kind of proves their cultural 'Americanness'. I'm also pretty sure it has a lot to do with their desire to sucede from Mexico.

No it doesn't.

It was not the only thing.

I've already answered this I think, but it's been a while.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

maybe it proves a desire to have others work for you.Which has been seen throughout time and the world...Egypt,Russia,Persia,Rome,Dutch,French and English come to mind...Slavery...or stubbornness was never uniquely American,but we admire your attempt...lol

The dogged defense of the practice of slavery was an American thing at the time in the region. While what you said was true, it doesn't really refute that they were culturally American.

'we admire your attempt'
Yeah, this thread was an early effort on my part to dip my toes in different parts of the website. My toes got smashed pretty bad here and it's clear I don't really fit in in World History. I just can't keep up with the Dachs's and TraitorFish's and Flying Pig's.

But it's still fun to necro this thread when I feel like getting beat up.

No it doesn't.

It was not the only thing.

I've already answered this I think, but it's been a while.

Yeah it kind of does. The Mexicans weren't pushing for slavery in their territory. And this wasn't the only cultural trait the American Texans brought with them, so I agree with you on this.

 

[King Kalmah]

The dogged defense of the practice of slavery was an American thing at the time in the region. While what you said was true, it doesn't really refute that they were culturally American.

'we admire your attempt'
Yeah, this thread was an early effort on my part to dip my toes in different parts of the website. My toes got smashed pretty bad here and it's clear I don't really fit in in World History. I just can't keep up with the Dachs's and TraitorFish's and Flying Pig's.

But it's still fun to necro this thread when I feel like getting beat up.

I just found the history page too and I am also getting my "feet wet" so no worries...

and what I said was meant to be funny so no worries my friend...

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I just found the history page too and I am also getting my "feet wet" so no worries...

and what I said was meant to be funny so no worries my friend...

Oh I wasn't offended. This thread amuses me, don't mind being attacked. Read page one. Traitorfish destroyed me. Soul crushing, really.

But hey, soulcrushing isn't a thing, so i'm good.

Culture bombing is, however. I win.

 

[Flying Pig]

The dogged defense of the practice of slavery was an American thing at the time in the region. While what you said was true, it doesn't really refute that they were culturally American.

I see the point, actually. Owning slaves wasn't a specifically American thing to do - lots of people throughout history have done it - but because the Americans were the only people around doing it, it became a sign of national stubborness to stick to it. I guess you could use the classic example of the English expat who refuses to eat the local food and sticks to what he knows - although eating fish and chips isn't a uniquely British thing to do, nor is it a statement of allegiance to HM the Queen, anybody who lives abroad and yet insists on doing so is probably making some sort of statement to the effect that they're British and proud of it.

My toes got smashed pretty bad here and it's clear I don't really fit in in World History. I just can't keep up with the Dachs's and TraitorFish's and Flying Pig's.

I'm honoured to be lumped in with those two... I still feel like that quite a lot of the time. Stick with it; it can be good fun talking history with people who really know what they're talking about, and Dachs isn't as scary as he appears at first glance.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I see the point, actually. Owning slaves wasn't a specifically American thing to do - lots of people throughout history have done it - but because the Americans were the only people around doing it, it became a sign of national stubborness to stick to it. I guess you could use the classic example of the English expat who refuses to eat the local food and sticks to what he knows - although eating fish and chips isn't a uniquely British thing to do, nor is it a statement of allegiance to HM the Queen, anybody who lives abroad and yet insists on doing so is probably making some sort of statement to the effect that they're British and proud of it.

Exactly! It's not like the Mexicans in Texas started owning slaves because the Texans were doing it AFAIK.

I mean, I understand my analogy absolutely falls apart on many levels. It's a comparison with a video game mechanic, after all. It just struck me that in the game you can culture bomb territory away, which inevitably leads to a war and more territory grabbing. I kind of see a parallel with real world history in this case, even if I have to resort to silly arguments to force my point home.

I'm honoured to be lumped in with those two... I still feel like that quite a lot of the time. Stick with it; it can be good fun talking history with people who really know what they're talking about, and Dachs isn't as scary as he appears at first glance.

You earned the compliment brah. You're wicked smart and a great poster!

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm honoured to be lumped in with those two... I still feel like that quite a lot of the time.

I was thinking the same thing.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I hope I didn't offend anyone by not including them. Those three names were the first who came to mind that can be counted on to put me in my place.

 

[Lord Baal]

I hope I didn't offend anyone by not including them. Those three names were the first who came to mind that can be counted on to put me in my place.

I am horribly offended. Dachs isn't that scary. Try bringing up a subject he knows absolutely nothing about. Like, um, I don't know, Metaxas?

 

[Tee Kay]

Metaxas is Greek. Try, ummmmm, Ne Win? But then you'll have to contend with Masada.

 

[Dachs]

You could try Indian history. That's mostly a black hole.

 

[Plotinus]

Yeah, this thread was an early effort on my part to dip my toes in different parts of the website. My toes got smashed pretty bad here and it's clear I don't really fit in in World History. I just can't keep up with the Dachs's and TraitorFish's and Flying Pig's.

I wouldn't worry. For the record I'm still wondering if any civilisation has ever used espionage to literally buy every one of an enemy's cities without bloodshed (apart from the capital), as I used to do in Civ 1.

 

[Masada]

Try, ummmmm, Ne Win? But then you'll have to contend with Masada.

Please do.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I wouldn't worry. For the record I'm still wondering if any civilisation has ever used espionage to literally buy every one of an enemy's cities without bloodshed (apart from the capital), as I used to do in Civ 1.

A related question:
Did Austria diplomatic every single City State in existance at the time?

They troll me so hard with that.

 

[dutchfire]

edit: wrong thread

 

[King Kalmah]

I wouldn't worry. For the record I'm still wondering if any civilisation has ever used espionage to literally buy every one of an enemy's cities without bloodshed (apart from the capital), as I used to do in Civ 1.

Call me crazy,but Soviet Russia come to mind during the early 20s with the political "civil war" that was raging when it came to the Bolsheviks vs. the Mensheviks(spelling) ...I can see espionage being used to capture rival political cities/zones...kinda influence it with minimal bloodshed...

I really wish Civ5 would have really expended espoinage to where your nation could support communism/democracy and sway an enemy's people yto your side using the politics they want...

Like lets say you are playing Civ4 and wanted to make an ally with Shaka,but he hates you.Now normally you would have to fight as his ally in multiple wars and give him every single resource you have...Now what if there was a politic option that made it where you could support the democrats if shaka was in Despotism and then they either culturally revolt to your side....or Shaka would be forced to change his civic... .However the only real result would be a +1 with shaka and that is already done with less EPs ....

I guess Civ6...a man can dream...

A related question:
Did Austria diplomatic every single City State in existance at the time?

They troll me so hard with that.

LOL...I love Austria since it did do alot with its...decedents...diplomatic marriages were not just an Austrian thing...alot of other Western European kingdoms engaged in this...just the Austrian got the most out of it...also Austrian-Hungarian dual monarchy gave alot of power to the Hungarian's that other vassels did not have....

 

[ParkCungHee]

I wouldn't worry. For the record I'm still wondering if any civilisation has ever used espionage to literally buy every one of an enemy's cities without bloodshed (apart from the capital), as I used to do in Civ 1.

Surrender and Regrant was probably the closest thing I could think of.