The End of Texas

140 Pages·0.497 MB·English

by  Juan Batista

The End of Texas
Or How Indigenous Mexicans Had Something Different to Say About a
“Republic of Texas”
By Juan Batista
Copyright 2012, All Rights Reserved by Author
Published by Juan Batista at Smashword
Smashwords Edition, License Notes
This ebook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This ebook may not
be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with
another person, please purchase an additional copy for each recipient. If you’re
reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use
only, then please return to Smashwords.com and purchase your own copy. Thank
you for respecting the hard work of this author.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Chapter 1: The Governor Flirts With Secession
Chapter 2: The Governor Pals Around With Terrorists
Chapter 3: Another Resolution Passes
Chapter 4: Carlos Guerrero Editorial
1
Chapter 5: Rally at the Alamo
Chapter 6: The Militias Rally
Chapter 7: Standoff
Chapter 8: Alamodome Convention
Chapter 9: El Paso and Austin Conventions
Chapter 10: What a Difference
Chapter 11: The Final Breakaways?
Chapter 12: Would It Work?
Appendix I: Rio Grande Constitution
Appendix II: Pecos Constitution
Appendix III: Constitution of the City-State of Austin
Appendix IV: West Texas Constitution
Appendix V: Proposed Constitution for Adelsverein
Appendix VI: Charts
Appendix VII: Republic of Texas Quotes
Notes
Coming from Juan Batista
Coahuila y Tejas
2
3
Texas Republic Claims & Reality
1. Area of Sporadic Control & Ethnic Cleansing by Anglo-American Proslavery
Insurgency
2. Territory & People Remaining Loyal to Mexico, Claimed by Insurgents But
With No Actual Control Whatsoever.
The End of Texas
4
Introduction
A Little History: No Lies, No Bull, Just Straight Facts
All of this introduction, all the events and facts, are true. All portions of the
book describing events prior to the secession speech are true. Every word in this
book about Texas history, people, culture, politics, and government are absolutely
5
true, scrupulously researched, and beyond doubt, no matter how much people
devoted to the myths surrounding Texas might wish to think otherwise.
The entire first and second chapters in particular are also true, with the
exception of some small parts of Governor Rick Perry’s speech and the responses
to it. Those parts which have been altered are indicated by italics.
All of the events and facts in the remainder of this book could have come true.
They came very close to being true, and would have become true with just very
slight changes. This book could have come true just by Governor Perry doing some
things which have become signatures of his, a careless slip of the tongue followed
by obstinately insisting he is right when confronted with evidence he is clearly
wrong, and refusing to back down or admit to being wrong.
All of the facts and events in this book, prior to the pivotal change of the
aftermath of Rick Perry’s now infamous speech approving, with a wink and a
nudge, the idea of secession and treason against the United States, are true. Unlike
most books on Texas, both fact and fiction, they have not been altered or rewritten
to fit with foolishly romanticized notions about the origins or Texas or the
mythology built about around some of its archetypical characters like cowboys,
Rangers, and indeed “Texans.”
Rick Perry does not deserve to be the primary villain of this book, and in fact
he is not. He is just a posturing buffoon with no deep seated beliefs who changes
positions on issues even more than the Clintons. The primary villains of this book
are various organizations of traitors residing in the state of Texas, some of them
violent, some of them racist, some of them simply deluded or ignorant of what they
think they know. Many of them are now former supporters of Rick Perry, as some
of the rants quoted at the end of Appendix VII: Republic of Texas Quotes make
clear. But Perry sought out their support, used them to build himself a greater base
6
by pandering to their contemptible beliefs before later abandoning and angering
them.
It was pure luck Perry’s support from such extremists did not explode in his
face. His association with such traitors and dangerous terrorists may yet become a
liability in the near future. (Yes, it is true, and I will say it. Rick Perry, a man who
would be president, was truly “palling around with terrorists,” unlike the baseless
and utterly ridiculous charge once made against our current president. Yet while
not many Republicans and conservatives voted for Perry because of his bumbling,
most still will make excuses for his ties to terrorists. In some narrow little minds,
whites can’t be terrorists, only Arabs.)
Rick Perry is far more foolhardy than he is evil. He is just another very
ambitious, unscrupulous, and ultimately foolish politician, skilled at very little
besides (sometimes) getting himself elected, with far too much tunnel vision and
too little brains. His primary foolishness is in not realizing (or caring) how he
could have unleashed some very disastrous events.
There is a long strain of secessionism/treason in Texas history. Texas itself was
founded in secessionism and would never have come into being if it were not for
this strain (I’m tempted to say “stain”) of thought.
Texas was born because a group of immigrants, some legal, some illegal,
including some who were downright criminals and terrorists of the lowest sorts,
decided to take over their new adopted land, a place that had generously welcomed
them, even offering them handouts and public assistance. But that wasn’t enough.
They refused to follow the law (specifically, the ban on slavery) and lashed out
angrily with criminal and treasonous actions.
Did I mention those ungrateful, traitorous immigrants were Anglo-Americans,
the very same ones held up as all-American heroes? They had been invited in as
immigrants by Mexico’s government, and to thank the Mexican nation, they tried
7
to take over and impose their ways on others by violence and terrorism. They are
the ones widely hailed in Texas history as heroes and founding fathers.
Anyone doubting that the founders of Texas were racist terrorists should go
right now to Appendix VII: Republic of Texas Quotes. Founders they were, but
many of them were far from being heroic. Jim Bowie, supposed hero of the Battle
of the Alamo, was that most despicable of human beings, a slave trader. The
second president of the “Texas Republic,” Mirabeau Lamar, was a vicious racist of
the worst sort, downright genocidal towards American Indians, leading
extermination efforts against even the friendliest tribes like the Caddo, Cherokee,
and Shawnee. The only one of the insurgent leaders with occasional decency was
Sam Houston.
As for the most famous “Texan,” Davy Crockett…well, he wasn’t really a
Texan at all. He had only been in Texas a few weeks when he got himself and his
hapless followers trapped at the Alamo by mistake, getting himself captured and
then executed after the battle. By some accounts he even tried to bargain for his
life. And why not? No one could truly blame him for wanting to live, except the
most fanatically blind partisan of the myths built around Texas “independence”
who falsely insist he was a martyr fighting to the last for their misguided, hopeless,
and terroristic cause.
The Battle of the Alamo was probably the most ludicrous case of misguided
martyrdom until Custer at Little Big Horn. In both battles, these were cases of
incompetent commanders throwing away the lives of their men needlessly. In both
cases, myths about the battles take aggressors and turn them into “defenders” for
the sole reason that they were white and their enemies (who were defending their
homelands) were not white. Cheer for the “heroes” of the Battles of Alamo and
Little Big Horn and you cheer for racism and conquest, whether you know it or
8
not, whether you understand that or not, and whether you are honest enough to
admit it or not.
Fact is, most of the “Texans” had been in the Mexican state of Coahuila y
Tejas for less than a year when they decided to commit treason and started their
insurgency. Yet in history books and elsewhere, they are called “Texans” for one
simple reason: Again, they were white, Anglo-Americans, or Anglos as commonly
called in the southwest. (An Anglo need not be of English ancestry and can refer to
any non-Latino white person.)
Meanwhile, the Mexicans who had been there for many generations, and the
Indians who had been there for thousands of years, generally get called or are
assumed by the ignorant to be “foreigners” simply because they are not white.
(Often this goes hand in hand with calling them the many derogatory names for
Mexican or Indian, and I fully expect many of my critics to do the exact same thing
to me based solely on the last half of my pen name.) It’s the old story of racist
Manifest Destiny, and of defining only whites as Texans, and thus by extension
“real ‘Mericans.”
Not only was the insurgency one of racist terrorists. The so-called “Texas
Republic” was nothing of the sort, not an independent nation in any meaningful
sense. It was never even intended by the insurgent leaders to be an independent
nation at all. Texas was intended to become, from the very beginning of the
insurgency, another American state, one which would have slavery. Texas leaders
applied for admission to the US within a few days of claiming “independence” but
never counted on the US President saying no. No, we don’t want you. No, we don’t
want any more conflict over the expansion of slavery, a new slave state, and more
slave owners.
So Texas became a supposed “independent nation” against its will, but its
insurgent leaders never even wanted to be independent anyway. And by any
9
practical or honest standard, Texas was never an independent nation. Texas was
no more an actual independent nation than Chechnya is today. And Texan
insurgents were every bit as vicious, bigoted terrorists as Chechen fighters are
today.
The agreement to independence from Mexico was signed by its
president/dictator, Santa Ana (pronounced “Santana” like the musician) while he
was a prisoner of war. His signature, obtained by force and under duress, was not
valid, and he immediately repudiated it afterwards. Santa Ana had no authority to
sign away a piece of the Mexican nation anyway. Not surprisingly, Mexico’s
congress never approved or ratified the agreement.
Independence is not only self sufficiency. Independence which is not
recognized by others is not true independence. No actual nations in the world
recognized Texas as a nation. And why would they? Keep in mind, far from being
an actual nation, it was a mostly empty huge area with only a tiny number of
people in it, perhaps 30,000. Plus there were Indian tribes and Mexicans who
stayed loyal to Mexico, likely outnumbering the insurgents. Most people within
“Texas” certainly did not accept the mythical authority of this would-be nation.
Contrary to the fantasies of mythmakers, the US never sent ambassadors to Texas.
The US government did send charges d’affairs, temporary agents that were just
sent there to assess the situation. Some of these charge d’affairs were only in the
insurgent area for as little as a few weeks.
The one possibility, the only nation that took preliminary steps to grant
recognition, was France, kind of, sort of. (Isn’t it a nice irony that the Texas
Republic’s claim of independence would depend on French recognition? The
French, who are despised by so many “real ‘Mericans.”) France did send an
ambassador. But the French ambassador never even went to Texas, and spent all of
his time in New Orleans, getting drunk and chasing women. Thus there were no
10