Does anyone know anything about civil war dissent in texas?
154981
nope, sorry.  we have a relative from the civil war, but we dont know a SINGLE THING about him! lol.  (we found his uniform though)
660227
The origins of the American Civil War lay in the complex issues of slavery, politics, disagreements over the scope of States' rights, Manifest Destiny, sectionalism, economic competition, modernization, and competing nationalisms of the Antebellum period. Although there is little disagreement among historians on the details of the events that led to war, there is disagreement on exactly what caused what and the relative importance. There is no consensus on whether the war could have been avoided, or if it should have been avoided.
833705
Bustamante's Decree, 6 April 1830. In 1828, General Manuel Mier y Ter醤 was commissioned by President Guadalupe Victoria as early as 1827 to help in negotiating the boundary between the Republic of Mexico and the United States of the north and determine the situation in the colonies in more detail after the Fredonian Rebellion. He was the head of a scientific commission spending most of the time in Nacogdoches in 1828 gathering data for a boundary survey. Teran described the condition in Texas to President Victoria: \n\n"The whole population here is a mixture of strange and incoherent parts without parallel in our federation; numerous tribes of Indians, now at peace, but armed and at any moment ready for war, whose steps toward civilization should be taken under the close supervision of a strong and intelligent government; colonists of another people, more aggressive and better informed than the Mexican inhabitants, but also more shrewd and unruly; among these foreigners are fugitives from justice, honest laborers, vagabonds and criminals, but honorable and dishonorable alike travel with their political constitution in their pockets, demanding the privileges, authority, and officers which such a constitution guarantees. Added to this motley mixture were the slaves beginning to learn the favorable intent of the Mexican law toward their unfortunate condition and held with an iron hand to keep them in a state of subjection. The Mexican natives were poor and ignorant, and the local civil officers venal and corrupt; and the colonists, imagining that they were typical, despised all Mexicans. The incoming stream of new settlers was unceasing; and the first news of them came by discovering them on land which they had already long occupied; the old inhabitants would then set up a claim of doubtful validity, a law suit would ensue, and the alcalde had a chance to come out with some money."\n\nIn 1829 when he became Commandant of the Eastern Interior Provinces with Texas in his jurisdiction in response to agitation in the United States for purchase of Texas, he denounced such methods in the following to the minister of war:\n\n"Instead of armies, battles, or invasions, which make a great noise and for the most part are unsuccessful, these men lay hands on means which, if considered one by one, would be rejected as slow, ineffective, and at times palpably absurd. They begin by assuming rights, as in Texas, which it is impossible to sustain in a serious discussion, making ridiculous pretensions based on historical incidents which no one admits---such as the voyage of La Salle, which was an absurd fiasco, but serves as a basis for their claim to Texas. Such extravagant claims as these are now being presented for the first time to the public by dissembling writers. The efforts that others make to submit proofs and reasons are by these men employed in reiterations and in enlarging upon matters of administration in order to attract the attention of their fellow countrymen, not to the justice of the claim, but to the profit to be gained from admitting it. At this stage it is alleged that there is a national demand for the step which the government meditates. In the meantime, the territory against which these machinations are directed, and which has usually remained unsettled, begins to be visited by adventurers and empresarios; some of these take up their residence in the country, pretending that their location has no bearing upon the question of their government's claim or the boundary disputes; shortly, some of these forerunners develop an interest which complicates the political administration of the coveted territory; complaints, even threats, begin to be heard, working on the loyalty of the legitimate settlers, discrediting the efficiency of the existing authority and administration; and the matter having arrived at this stage---which is precisely that of Texas at this moment--diplomatic manoeuvers begin."\n\nF
731374
this site has a great one!\n\nhttp://www.tamu.edu/ccbn/dewitt/batgon.htm
999407
http://aclu.org/\nhttp://texasbar.org/\nTry these links.
148079
That's quite possible.  I've actually been seeing this coming for almost 2 years now.  I never saw a different outcome.  I think that preventing the civil war from happening will actually cause more harm than good.  I saw split the country up now -- even without a war.  The country was manufactured after WW1 and has no business putting together groups of people that dont really like each other.
1118654
Hey, I'm from wayne Co, Wv, but now live in Texas, I go back home to visit often, ummm as far as your question goes, I will look around see what I can find , if I find anything I will post it on here. Good Luck!
176444
The governer of Texas, Sam Houston, was vehamently opposed to Texas seceding from the Union. Ultimately, the state's government felt that the states were giving up too much control over their affairs to the Federal government.
733840
Check out some of the stuff the War Resisters' League is doing.\nTax protest and other things.\nhttp://www.warresisters.org
1146520
No. Dissent is just what they call their incessant pissing and moaning. Somehow they think it makes them sound patriotic.
549997
no, the u.s. would not allow them or any other state to secede(remember the civil war?). plus it would be in the state's best interests not to. several years ago some separatist wackos found a loophole that claimed texas was still a republic, but a judge ruled against them. end of story.
312387
WOW....I must be totally off base from the other answerers because the first thing that came to mind when I glanced at the question was BAD TEETH.  BUT.....I guess that wouldn't be impressive would it.  Were you asking for geographical info?  If so I have nothing for you....but hey do YOU know the capital of Texas?
560996
There are several books on this subject.  Also, check out www.kennedytwins.com for all sorts of links and listings on the Confederacy.
284848
I don't have the time to list them for you, but here is a site that might help some...\n\n      http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761567354/Civil_War.html#p53
905947
Try out the First Amendment Center:\n\nhttp://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/?src=overture\n\nI haven't researched this site, but they list their categories as "speech, press, religious liberty, assembly, and petition."  The top few of their articles listed under "Headlines" are:\n\n"Anti-war protest allowed outside NY mall"\n"Md. high court: Baltimore agency must open meetings"\n"Texas PBS station to air program it initially blocked"\n"Ind. judge rejects prosecutor's bid to stop opponent's political ad" \n\nAnd, it allows you the option to choose from more headlines.  There are also many other options.\n\nHope this helps.  I simply did an Internet search and it was the first I found.  You may even be able to find more if you research.  Good luck with your homework.
361372
try doing a search on the antebellum south I was researching Mississippi and found barbeque postcards which were postcards of a lynching victim and there were links to archived sites that had actual interviews from slaves. former slaves and witnesses during that era maybe you'll be able to locate some archived financial information as well there was also a link to sites that claimed to record accurate not pop culture history, sorry I don't remember the sites I just remember how I got there
218572
This is going to be just a quick summary...\nFor the most part, it was not all about slavery. The states North of the Mason-Dixon line were content with slavery in the South...the problem was the "Westward Expansion." The North wanted the new states to be free from slavery, whereas the South wanted those states to be open to slavery. There were a few compromises made years before the actual war began, however, those obviously did not work. On December 20, 1860, South Carolina announced it's leave from the Union...Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas followed. \nOn February 4th, 1861, the Confederate States of America was formed with Jefferson Davis as the president. A new constitution was drawn up. Key differences were:\n*The president and vice president were elected for six year terms whereas the North had only four years. \n*The protection of slavery in new territories was given. \n*No slave trade with Africa\n*President Davis could take a loan for $15 million for the creation of a military force of 100,000. \nPresident Davis was inaugurated February 18, 1861. \n\nPresident Lincoln for the Union said, "Physically speaking, we cannot separate. We cannot remove our respective sections from each other, nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other, but the different parts of our country cannot do this. They cannot but remain face and face, and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after seperation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends?Suppose you go to war, you cannot fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides, and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old quesetions as to terms of intercourse are again upon you. In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to 'preserve, protect, and defend' it..." (Page 8)\nThe first shots of the Civil War were fired on April 12th, 1861 at Ft. Sumter, South Carolina. The fight lasted for thirty-four hours, and ended by the North surrendering. The war continued until April of 1865. \nAfter it was all said and done, most of the South was destroyed and the loss of lives on both ends, are up to this day, only an estimate (over 100,000). It is said, the number of Yanks and Rebels who died are greater than the loss of American lives in both World Wars, the Korean War, and the Vietiman War...all combined.\n\nI hope this has been helpful to you. Here are some other books to check out if you are really interested in the Civil War:\n-"After the Civil War" by John S. Blay\n-"The Life of Johnny Reb" by Bell I. Wiley\n-"The Life of Billy Yank" by Bell I. Wiley\n-"Embattled Courage" by Gerald F. Linderman\n-"The Civil War: Strange & Fascinating Facts" by Burke Davis