Texas Gov Signs 1836 Project Into Law - Finally True Texas History Will Be Taught

[Biff_Poindexter]

Gov. Greg Abbott signs 1836 Project into law, promotes ‘patriotic education’

AUSTIN, Texas (KAMR/KCIT) —— Monday, Governor Greg Abbott signed a law establishing the 1836 Project, a project that seeks to raise awareness about key events in the state’s history. Rep. Tan Parke…

www.myhighplains.com

"Monday, Governor Greg Abbott signed a law establishing the 1836 Project, a project that seeks to raise awareness about key events in the state’s history. Earlier this year, the state passed a bill that would ban the teaching of the 1619 Project which examines U.S. history from the date when enslaved people first arrived on American soil, marking that year as the country’s foundational date.

Right now, the project would only be taught at state parks, museums, and landmarks, but one local teacher is joining many across the state who are worried that this could make its way into the class. “It really important for students and educators to know that the Texas that we have today started well before 1836. Texas has a rich history with many positive things, but also many negative things that have to lead to our society now,” said Amarillo Education Association President Aaron Phillips."

This is the problem with the woke mob deep state critical race theory transgender libs -- they always want to bring up the negative parts of our history...I am born and raised in Texas; so I never got a chance to learn about Texas history in school except for the 2 mandated years every student is required to learn Texas history....but that wasn't real Texas history....now thanks to the 1836 project, we will finally be able to learn real Texas history....Sadly, the 1836 project won't be officially taught in schools, but hopefully it will be soon.....

And it bet not include anything about any flaws in our state's founding -- it definitely bet not include any references to the Texas Article of Secession either -- because that only causes division....it also bet not include anything about indigenous or Tejano people as if Texas was like their homeland; it's better for the sake of unity if we refer to them as illegal immigrants actually....The only true history of Texas we need to know is that Texas kicked a bunch of wetback ass and became a state in 1836 -- and then everybody had freedom..any deviation from that is basically cultural Marxism.

What complaint do you have about it?

Nothing, he just hates white people.

Funny that you think Texas history is white people's history...

You pretty much made my point...thanks

Who are You to be demanding what should be taught in schools you arrogant pompous prick? How can it be texas history if you chose the bits your not embarrassed about?
They bet not this or bet not that. Bullshit. What will you do if they do?

Is this what your frightened of?

History of slavery in Texas - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

It's about now you wished you'd have shut your mouth.

Well aren't you sassy...

View attachment 499058

That one hurt you didn't it? You thought you were clever but got your ass kicked you pompous fool. Try Again.

I will overlook the fact you are too slow to recognize sarcasm...

because not everyone is as astute as I am....

 

[Colin norris]

Gov. Greg Abbott signs 1836 Project into law, promotes ‘patriotic education’

AUSTIN, Texas (KAMR/KCIT) —— Monday, Governor Greg Abbott signed a law establishing the 1836 Project, a project that seeks to raise awareness about key events in the state’s history. Rep. Tan Parke…

www.myhighplains.com

"Monday, Governor Greg Abbott signed a law establishing the 1836 Project, a project that seeks to raise awareness about key events in the state’s history. Earlier this year, the state passed a bill that would ban the teaching of the 1619 Project which examines U.S. history from the date when enslaved people first arrived on American soil, marking that year as the country’s foundational date.

Right now, the project would only be taught at state parks, museums, and landmarks, but one local teacher is joining many across the state who are worried that this could make its way into the class. “It really important for students and educators to know that the Texas that we have today started well before 1836. Texas has a rich history with many positive things, but also many negative things that have to lead to our society now,” said Amarillo Education Association President Aaron Phillips."

This is the problem with the woke mob deep state critical race theory transgender libs -- they always want to bring up the negative parts of our history...I am born and raised in Texas; so I never got a chance to learn about Texas history in school except for the 2 mandated years every student is required to learn Texas history....but that wasn't real Texas history....now thanks to the 1836 project, we will finally be able to learn real Texas history....Sadly, the 1836 project won't be officially taught in schools, but hopefully it will be soon.....

And it bet not include anything about any flaws in our state's founding -- it definitely bet not include any references to the Texas Article of Secession either -- because that only causes division....it also bet not include anything about indigenous or Tejano people as if Texas was like their homeland; it's better for the sake of unity if we refer to them as illegal immigrants actually....The only true history of Texas we need to know is that Texas kicked a bunch of wetback ass and became a state in 1836 -- and then everybody had freedom..any deviation from that is basically cultural Marxism.

What complaint do you have about it?

Nothing, he just hates white people.

Funny that you think Texas history is white people's history...

You pretty much made my point...thanks

Who are You to be demanding what should be taught in schools you arrogant pompous prick? How can it be texas history if you chose the bits your not embarrassed about?
They bet not this or bet not that. Bullshit. What will you do if they do?

Is this what your frightened of?

History of slavery in Texas - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

It's about now you wished you'd have shut your mouth.

Well aren't you sassy...

View attachment 499058

That one hurt you didn't it? You thought you were clever but got your ass kicked you pompous fool. Try Again.

I will overlook the fact you are too slow to recognize sarcasm...

because not everyone is as astute as I am....

You do that but you can expect the same next time you open your big mouth.

 

[Mac1958]

More red meat for the base.

Both ends of this issue just love providing the other end with material. A very symbiotic relationship.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Texas revolted against Mexico because Mexico wanted to ban slavery.
They also withdrew from the union to preserve their slavery

God DAMN you are a fucking liar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Revolution#Background
"Following the Mexican War of Independence, Texas became part of Mexico. Under the Constitution of 1824, which defined the country as a federal republic, the provinces of Texas and Coahuila were combined to become the state Coahuila y Tejas.[Note 2][8][9] Texas was granted only a single seat in the state legislature, which met in Saltillo, hundreds of miles away.[10][11] After months of grumbling by Tejanos (Mexican-born residents of Texas) outraged at the loss of their political autonomy, state officials agreed to make Texas a department of the new state, with a de facto capital in San Antonio de Béxar.[10]"

The REAL Texas History......not your whitewashed definition

History of slavery in Texas - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The issue of slavery became a source of contention between the Anglo-American settlers and Spanish governors. The governors feared the growth in the Anglo-American population in Texas, and for various reasons, by the early 19th century, they and their superiors in Mexico City disapproved of expanding slavery. In 1829 the Guerrero decree conditionally abolished slavery throughout Mexican territories. It was a decision that increased tensions with slave-holders among the Anglo-Americans.

After the Texas Revolution ended in 1836, the Constitution of the Republic of Texas made slavery legal. The General Provisions of the Constitution forbade any slave owner from freeing his slaves without the consent of Congress and forbade Congress from making any law that restricted the slave trade or emancipated slaves.

Read your own links, dumb fuck.

"In August 1831, Juan Davis Bradburn, the military commander of the custom station on Upper Galveston Bay, gave asylum to two men who had escaped from slavery in Louisiana. The slave owner hired William Barret Travis, a local lawyer, in an attempt to retrieve the men. When Bradburn arrested Travis on suspicion of plotting an insurrection, settlers rebelled. The disturbances were resolved through a combination of arms and political maneuvering. One result was the Turtle Bayou Resolutions, which were an explanation of the grievances that had led to the disturbances. One of the resolutions challenged Bradburn for "advising and procuring servants to quit the service of their masters, and offering them protection; causing them to labor for his benefits, and refusing to compensate them for the same."

The assholes arrested a local lawyer (who became the commander at the Alamo) on bullshit charges. That started most of the shit.

completely ignores what I posted

Texas was built on slavery and they revolted twice over the issue

I will grant you the Civil War. The Texas Declaration could not be more clear. It was about slavery.

The Texas Revolution was about a BUNCH of issues, including being ruled from afar and only getting ONE representative for the entire state of NOT JUST TEXAS but also Couhuila.

YOUR OWN FUCKING LINK AND QUOTE says that Mexico feared the growing Anglo population.

It was started because Mexicans are afraid of white people.

You can't claim the Texas revolution was about a "BUNCH" of issues then reduce it to Mexicans being afraid of white people....since much of Mexico were populated by what you would call.....white people...

Or were Spanish people not white?

Oh, sorry, Biff. "White People" is such a fucking fluid term with you negro race hustlers, I can never keep it straight.

They were afraid of Anglo-Americans (fucking limey descendants, of which I am one).

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

but it was.........

so yea, you are definitely trying to cancel historical facts.......

All the 1619 project does is state the basic fact that this nation didn't just magically begin in 1776 out of thin air....

It is a MOTHERFUCKING FACT that in 1619, the area currently called "The United States of America" was NOT. Rather, it was part of the British Empire.

It is also a MOTHERFUCKING FACT that 157 years later, this country was formed when the British Colonies in America SECEDED from the British Empire.

It is also a MOTHEFUCKING FACT that slavery in the United States of America ended 157 year ago --- CONVENIENTLY SYMETRICAL don't you think?

Say it with me, Biff --

In 1619, "America" was part of the British Empire. The fucking Brits started all that shit. 157 years later, the colonies seceded from the British Empire. 157 years later, I, Biff, got on USMB claiming that this country was founded 157 years before it was.

Get it?

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Texas revolted against Mexico because Mexico wanted to ban slavery.
They also withdrew from the union to preserve their slavery

God DAMN you are a fucking liar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Revolution#Background
"Following the Mexican War of Independence, Texas became part of Mexico. Under the Constitution of 1824, which defined the country as a federal republic, the provinces of Texas and Coahuila were combined to become the state Coahuila y Tejas.[Note 2][8][9] Texas was granted only a single seat in the state legislature, which met in Saltillo, hundreds of miles away.[10][11] After months of grumbling by Tejanos (Mexican-born residents of Texas) outraged at the loss of their political autonomy, state officials agreed to make Texas a department of the new state, with a de facto capital in San Antonio de Béxar.[10]"

The REAL Texas History......not your whitewashed definition

History of slavery in Texas - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The issue of slavery became a source of contention between the Anglo-American settlers and Spanish governors. The governors feared the growth in the Anglo-American population in Texas, and for various reasons, by the early 19th century, they and their superiors in Mexico City disapproved of expanding slavery. In 1829 the Guerrero decree conditionally abolished slavery throughout Mexican territories. It was a decision that increased tensions with slave-holders among the Anglo-Americans.

After the Texas Revolution ended in 1836, the Constitution of the Republic of Texas made slavery legal. The General Provisions of the Constitution forbade any slave owner from freeing his slaves without the consent of Congress and forbade Congress from making any law that restricted the slave trade or emancipated slaves.

Read your own links, dumb fuck.

"In August 1831, Juan Davis Bradburn, the military commander of the custom station on Upper Galveston Bay, gave asylum to two men who had escaped from slavery in Louisiana. The slave owner hired William Barret Travis, a local lawyer, in an attempt to retrieve the men. When Bradburn arrested Travis on suspicion of plotting an insurrection, settlers rebelled. The disturbances were resolved through a combination of arms and political maneuvering. One result was the Turtle Bayou Resolutions, which were an explanation of the grievances that had led to the disturbances. One of the resolutions challenged Bradburn for "advising and procuring servants to quit the service of their masters, and offering them protection; causing them to labor for his benefits, and refusing to compensate them for the same."

The assholes arrested a local lawyer (who became the commander at the Alamo) on bullshit charges. That started most of the shit.

completely ignores what I posted

Texas was built on slavery and they revolted twice over the issue

I will grant you the Civil War. The Texas Declaration could not be more clear. It was about slavery.

The Texas Revolution was about a BUNCH of issues, including being ruled from afar and only getting ONE representative for the entire state of NOT JUST TEXAS but also Couhuila.

YOUR OWN FUCKING LINK AND QUOTE says that Mexico feared the growing Anglo population.

It was started because Mexicans are afraid of white people.

You can't claim the Texas revolution was about a "BUNCH" of issues then reduce it to Mexicans being afraid of white people....since much of Mexico were populated by what you would call.....white people...

Or were Spanish people not white?

Oh, sorry, Biff. "White People" is such a fucking fluid term with you negro race hustlers, I can never keep it straight.

They were afraid of Anglo-Americans (fucking limey descendants, of which I am one).

The only "race hustlers" are the people who came up with the social construct of race as a tool for power.....and that wasn't me....

I wasn't the one who demonized basically every immigrant group that came to this country...

I wasn't the one who demonized the Irish....then adopted them as "white" for power...

I wasn't the one who demonized the Polish or Slavs....then adopted them as "white" for power....

My question would be...why would anyone choose to identify with their oppressor and even adopt that same oppression and use it against others??

Oh I know why....

"New immigrants had a choice — fight for inclusion into the white race or align with people of color -- One Serbian worker said during the era, “You soon know something about this country. … Negroes never get a fair chance...." -- They watched whites abuse blacks, mimicked whatever they saw and whiteness — the carrot they had long reached for — slowly came closer to their grasp."

White immigrants weren’t always considered white — and acceptable

Who, exactly, is white? The answer sounds obvious — we know a white person when we see one, we think. But when Italians poured into America in the late 1800s an…

theundefeated.com

So I guess race was their hustle huh?

 

[struth]

Texas was know for its ”Juan Crow Laws” targeted against Mexicans

Texas immigration law clouded by state's history of racial discrimination

The state's attempt to target sanctuary cities is running into the state's racist past.

www.nbcnews.com

“during the period from 1848 to 1928, at least 232 people of Mexican descent were killed by mob violence or lynchings in Texas — some committed at the hands of Texas Rangers,”

Will this be included in the teaching of Texas heritage?

Of course not. We're in the "no bad news" era of education at this point.

Texas is run by kids, for kids.

Republican “Cancel Culture”
They cancel any part of the culture they are embarrassed by

Yeah...thats pretty much the case. Granted it was several decades ago but when I was going through Texas History as a youth; I don't remember slavery being mentioned until the Civil War was covered.

Mexico outlawed slavery in 1829, the revolution didn’t halle for 6 years

it certainly was likely a part of the frustration but the big issue was illegal immigration. The illegals took over mexico-texas...the illegals being americans

let that be a lesson for us

Yep.

Texas could make a lot of money if they started selling land grants to illegals.

or we keep illegals out so they wouldn’t try to take over part of our country

Silly position both in substance and paranoia.

hey i am sure the mexicans thought that way too in the 1830s

No, what the Mexicans thought was that they would sell land tracts to the settlers and make money off of those sales. Meanwhile, they would also benefit from the finished products the settlers made.

Given that we have the most lethal force ever imagined in terms of military strength, I'm pretty sure we could take the settlers if they were to try to form their own nation.

So not only are you stating silliness tinged with paranoia...you're knowledge of Texas history is weak.

you should read the immigrantion laws from 1829 on...

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Texas revolted against Mexico because Mexico wanted to ban slavery.
They also withdrew from the union to preserve their slavery

God DAMN you are a fucking liar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Revolution#Background
"Following the Mexican War of Independence, Texas became part of Mexico. Under the Constitution of 1824, which defined the country as a federal republic, the provinces of Texas and Coahuila were combined to become the state Coahuila y Tejas.[Note 2][8][9] Texas was granted only a single seat in the state legislature, which met in Saltillo, hundreds of miles away.[10][11] After months of grumbling by Tejanos (Mexican-born residents of Texas) outraged at the loss of their political autonomy, state officials agreed to make Texas a department of the new state, with a de facto capital in San Antonio de Béxar.[10]"

The REAL Texas History......not your whitewashed definition

History of slavery in Texas - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The issue of slavery became a source of contention between the Anglo-American settlers and Spanish governors. The governors feared the growth in the Anglo-American population in Texas, and for various reasons, by the early 19th century, they and their superiors in Mexico City disapproved of expanding slavery. In 1829 the Guerrero decree conditionally abolished slavery throughout Mexican territories. It was a decision that increased tensions with slave-holders among the Anglo-Americans.

After the Texas Revolution ended in 1836, the Constitution of the Republic of Texas made slavery legal. The General Provisions of the Constitution forbade any slave owner from freeing his slaves without the consent of Congress and forbade Congress from making any law that restricted the slave trade or emancipated slaves.

Read your own links, dumb fuck.

"In August 1831, Juan Davis Bradburn, the military commander of the custom station on Upper Galveston Bay, gave asylum to two men who had escaped from slavery in Louisiana. The slave owner hired William Barret Travis, a local lawyer, in an attempt to retrieve the men. When Bradburn arrested Travis on suspicion of plotting an insurrection, settlers rebelled. The disturbances were resolved through a combination of arms and political maneuvering. One result was the Turtle Bayou Resolutions, which were an explanation of the grievances that had led to the disturbances. One of the resolutions challenged Bradburn for "advising and procuring servants to quit the service of their masters, and offering them protection; causing them to labor for his benefits, and refusing to compensate them for the same."

The assholes arrested a local lawyer (who became the commander at the Alamo) on bullshit charges. That started most of the shit.

completely ignores what I posted

Texas was built on slavery and they revolted twice over the issue

I will grant you the Civil War. The Texas Declaration could not be more clear. It was about slavery.

The Texas Revolution was about a BUNCH of issues, including being ruled from afar and only getting ONE representative for the entire state of NOT JUST TEXAS but also Couhuila.

YOUR OWN FUCKING LINK AND QUOTE says that Mexico feared the growing Anglo population.

It was started because Mexicans are afraid of white people.

You can't claim the Texas revolution was about a "BUNCH" of issues then reduce it to Mexicans being afraid of white people....since much of Mexico were populated by what you would call.....white people...

Or were Spanish people not white?

Oh, sorry, Biff. "White People" is such a fucking fluid term with you negro race hustlers, I can never keep it straight.

They were afraid of Anglo-Americans (fucking limey descendants, of which I am one).

The only "race hustlers" are the people who came up with the social construct of race as a tool for power.....and that wasn't me....

I wasn't the one who demonized basically every immigrant group that came to this country...

I wasn't the one who demonized the Irish....then adopted them as "white" for power...

I wasn't the one who demonized the Polish or Slavs....then adopted them as "white" for power....

My question would be...why would anyone choose to identify with their oppressor and even adopt that same oppression and use it against others??

Oh I know why....

"New immigrants had a choice — fight for inclusion into the white race or align with people of color -- One Serbian worker said during the era, “You soon know something about this country. … Negroes never get a fair chance...." -- They watched whites abuse blacks, mimicked whatever they saw and whiteness — the carrot they had long reached for — slowly came closer to their grasp."

White immigrants weren’t always considered white — and acceptable

Who, exactly, is white? The answer sounds obvious — we know a white person when we see one, we think. But when Italians poured into America in the late 1800s an…

theundefeated.com

So I guess race was their hustle huh?

When have I ever denied that shit? Of course. They were guilty as charged. No argument.

For such a long time, up to, including, and after the "I have a dream" speech, black people have wanted to be included as equals and wanted race to go away.

NOW, after all that work to overcome and put aside racial inequality, the Marxists have hijacked the movement and want to keep dividing people by race, using it (and you) to stir up shit ONLY to gain power....AND YOU ARE LETTING THEM!!!

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Texas revolted against Mexico because Mexico wanted to ban slavery.
They also withdrew from the union to preserve their slavery

God DAMN you are a fucking liar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Revolution#Background
"Following the Mexican War of Independence, Texas became part of Mexico. Under the Constitution of 1824, which defined the country as a federal republic, the provinces of Texas and Coahuila were combined to become the state Coahuila y Tejas.[Note 2][8][9] Texas was granted only a single seat in the state legislature, which met in Saltillo, hundreds of miles away.[10][11] After months of grumbling by Tejanos (Mexican-born residents of Texas) outraged at the loss of their political autonomy, state officials agreed to make Texas a department of the new state, with a de facto capital in San Antonio de Béxar.[10]"

The REAL Texas History......not your whitewashed definition

History of slavery in Texas - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The issue of slavery became a source of contention between the Anglo-American settlers and Spanish governors. The governors feared the growth in the Anglo-American population in Texas, and for various reasons, by the early 19th century, they and their superiors in Mexico City disapproved of expanding slavery. In 1829 the Guerrero decree conditionally abolished slavery throughout Mexican territories. It was a decision that increased tensions with slave-holders among the Anglo-Americans.

After the Texas Revolution ended in 1836, the Constitution of the Republic of Texas made slavery legal. The General Provisions of the Constitution forbade any slave owner from freeing his slaves without the consent of Congress and forbade Congress from making any law that restricted the slave trade or emancipated slaves.

Read your own links, dumb fuck.

"In August 1831, Juan Davis Bradburn, the military commander of the custom station on Upper Galveston Bay, gave asylum to two men who had escaped from slavery in Louisiana. The slave owner hired William Barret Travis, a local lawyer, in an attempt to retrieve the men. When Bradburn arrested Travis on suspicion of plotting an insurrection, settlers rebelled. The disturbances were resolved through a combination of arms and political maneuvering. One result was the Turtle Bayou Resolutions, which were an explanation of the grievances that had led to the disturbances. One of the resolutions challenged Bradburn for "advising and procuring servants to quit the service of their masters, and offering them protection; causing them to labor for his benefits, and refusing to compensate them for the same."

The assholes arrested a local lawyer (who became the commander at the Alamo) on bullshit charges. That started most of the shit.

completely ignores what I posted

Texas was built on slavery and they revolted twice over the issue

I will grant you the Civil War. The Texas Declaration could not be more clear. It was about slavery.

The Texas Revolution was about a BUNCH of issues, including being ruled from afar and only getting ONE representative for the entire state of NOT JUST TEXAS but also Couhuila.

YOUR OWN FUCKING LINK AND QUOTE says that Mexico feared the growing Anglo population.

It was started because Mexicans are afraid of white people.

You can't claim the Texas revolution was about a "BUNCH" of issues then reduce it to Mexicans being afraid of white people....since much of Mexico were populated by what you would call.....white people...

Or were Spanish people not white?

Oh, sorry, Biff. "White People" is such a fucking fluid term with you negro race hustlers, I can never keep it straight.

They were afraid of Anglo-Americans (fucking limey descendants, of which I am one).

The only "race hustlers" are the people who came up with the social construct of race as a tool for power.....and that wasn't me....

I wasn't the one who demonized basically every immigrant group that came to this country...

I wasn't the one who demonized the Irish....then adopted them as "white" for power...

I wasn't the one who demonized the Polish or Slavs....then adopted them as "white" for power....

My question would be...why would anyone choose to identify with their oppressor and even adopt that same oppression and use it against others??

Oh I know why....

"New immigrants had a choice — fight for inclusion into the white race or align with people of color -- One Serbian worker said during the era, “You soon know something about this country. … Negroes never get a fair chance...." -- They watched whites abuse blacks, mimicked whatever they saw and whiteness — the carrot they had long reached for — slowly came closer to their grasp."

White immigrants weren’t always considered white — and acceptable

Who, exactly, is white? The answer sounds obvious — we know a white person when we see one, we think. But when Italians poured into America in the late 1800s an…

theundefeated.com

So I guess race was their hustle huh?

When have I ever denied that shit? Of course. They were guilty as charged. No argument.

For such a long time, up to, including, and after the "I have a dream" speech, black people have wanted to be included as equals and wanted race to go away.

NOW, after all that work to overcome and put aside racial inequality, the Marxists have hijacked the movement and want to keep dividing people by race, using it (and you) to stir up shit ONLY to gain power....AND YOU ARE LETTING THEM!!!

So you mean he needs to turn the other cheek.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Texas revolted against Mexico because Mexico wanted to ban slavery.
They also withdrew from the union to preserve their slavery

God DAMN you are a fucking liar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Revolution#Background
"Following the Mexican War of Independence, Texas became part of Mexico. Under the Constitution of 1824, which defined the country as a federal republic, the provinces of Texas and Coahuila were combined to become the state Coahuila y Tejas.[Note 2][8][9] Texas was granted only a single seat in the state legislature, which met in Saltillo, hundreds of miles away.[10][11] After months of grumbling by Tejanos (Mexican-born residents of Texas) outraged at the loss of their political autonomy, state officials agreed to make Texas a department of the new state, with a de facto capital in San Antonio de Béxar.[10]"

The REAL Texas History......not your whitewashed definition

History of slavery in Texas - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The issue of slavery became a source of contention between the Anglo-American settlers and Spanish governors. The governors feared the growth in the Anglo-American population in Texas, and for various reasons, by the early 19th century, they and their superiors in Mexico City disapproved of expanding slavery. In 1829 the Guerrero decree conditionally abolished slavery throughout Mexican territories. It was a decision that increased tensions with slave-holders among the Anglo-Americans.

After the Texas Revolution ended in 1836, the Constitution of the Republic of Texas made slavery legal. The General Provisions of the Constitution forbade any slave owner from freeing his slaves without the consent of Congress and forbade Congress from making any law that restricted the slave trade or emancipated slaves.

Read your own links, dumb fuck.

"In August 1831, Juan Davis Bradburn, the military commander of the custom station on Upper Galveston Bay, gave asylum to two men who had escaped from slavery in Louisiana. The slave owner hired William Barret Travis, a local lawyer, in an attempt to retrieve the men. When Bradburn arrested Travis on suspicion of plotting an insurrection, settlers rebelled. The disturbances were resolved through a combination of arms and political maneuvering. One result was the Turtle Bayou Resolutions, which were an explanation of the grievances that had led to the disturbances. One of the resolutions challenged Bradburn for "advising and procuring servants to quit the service of their masters, and offering them protection; causing them to labor for his benefits, and refusing to compensate them for the same."

The assholes arrested a local lawyer (who became the commander at the Alamo) on bullshit charges. That started most of the shit.

completely ignores what I posted

Texas was built on slavery and they revolted twice over the issue

I will grant you the Civil War. The Texas Declaration could not be more clear. It was about slavery.

The Texas Revolution was about a BUNCH of issues, including being ruled from afar and only getting ONE representative for the entire state of NOT JUST TEXAS but also Couhuila.

YOUR OWN FUCKING LINK AND QUOTE says that Mexico feared the growing Anglo population.

It was started because Mexicans are afraid of white people.

You can't claim the Texas revolution was about a "BUNCH" of issues then reduce it to Mexicans being afraid of white people....since much of Mexico were populated by what you would call.....white people...

Or were Spanish people not white?

Oh, sorry, Biff. "White People" is such a fucking fluid term with you negro race hustlers, I can never keep it straight.

They were afraid of Anglo-Americans (fucking limey descendants, of which I am one).

The only "race hustlers" are the people who came up with the social construct of race as a tool for power.....and that wasn't me....

I wasn't the one who demonized basically every immigrant group that came to this country...

I wasn't the one who demonized the Irish....then adopted them as "white" for power...

I wasn't the one who demonized the Polish or Slavs....then adopted them as "white" for power....

My question would be...why would anyone choose to identify with their oppressor and even adopt that same oppression and use it against others??

Oh I know why....

"New immigrants had a choice — fight for inclusion into the white race or align with people of color -- One Serbian worker said during the era, “You soon know something about this country. … Negroes never get a fair chance...." -- They watched whites abuse blacks, mimicked whatever they saw and whiteness — the carrot they had long reached for — slowly came closer to their grasp."

White immigrants weren’t always considered white — and acceptable

Who, exactly, is white? The answer sounds obvious — we know a white person when we see one, we think. But when Italians poured into America in the late 1800s an…

theundefeated.com

So I guess race was their hustle huh?

When have I ever denied that shit? Of course. They were guilty as charged. No argument.

For such a long time, up to, including, and after the "I have a dream" speech, black people have wanted to be included as equals and wanted race to go away.

NOW, after all that work to overcome and put aside racial inequality, the Marxists have hijacked the movement and want to keep dividing people by race, using it (and you) to stir up shit ONLY to gain power....AND YOU ARE LETTING THEM!!!

The fallacy lies with you folks believing having darker skin meant they were not equal...

What blacks folks have been doing has been about trying to educate folks like you out of your fallacy.....

And why do you folks continue to try to condense MLK to one speech?? In your desire to minimize and erase history -- you goofy muthafuckas can't even be honest about a guy yall pretend to love

Is it because if you were around in his day -- you wouldn't have loved him?? Easier to claim you were for something after the fact.....

When you folks try to reduce MLK to just a guy who had a simple message of love -- you are purposely bastardizing his message...his message was about LOVE AND POWER....stop trying to speak for him....he spoke well enough for himself

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So you mean he needs to turn the other cheek.

Turn the other cheek to whom? Dead people?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The fallacy lies with you folks believing having darker skin meant they were not equal...

Who? Me?

I don't believe that shit. I have pointed out many times that I believe black people believe it, unfortunately. I have pointed out that Democrats/Leftists have been very quick to claim black people are not equal.

What blacks folks have been doing has been about trying to educate folks like you out of your fallacy.....

That's the problem. You assume I need to be educated out of some fallacy.

And why do you folks continue to try to condense MLK to one speech?? In your desire to minimize and erase history -- you goofy muthafuckas can't even be honest about a guy yall pretend to love

Oh, yes. The old White Men Can't Jump you-can't-hear-Jimi (Hendrix) argument.

Save it.

Did he say or did he NOT say he wanted racial equality?

Is it because if you were around in his day -- you wouldn't have loved him?? Easier to claim you were for something after the fact.....

And you are assuming that I would have hated him. I was not even born yet. How can ANYONE live up to that standard? You are judging me for actions of others long before I was born, SOLELY because of the color of my skin, you asshole.

When you folks try to reduce MLK to just a guy who had a simple message of love -- you are purposely bastardizing his message...his message was about LOVE AND

I studied the "I have a dream" speech in college, motherfucker. I know it better than you.

Blacksplain this to me:

The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom.

Marxists want to peddle the bullshit notion that America was founded when black slaves arrived not because it is true, but FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE of destructively criticizing the foundation so they can re-write the constitution after the communist manifesto.

YOU KNOW IT'S TRUE.

What did Dr. King say about the founding?

In a sense we've come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the "unalienable Rights" of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note, insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds."

But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. And so, we've come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.

That doesn't sound anything like somebody who believes the entire founding was flawed and must be re-constructed in the image of Vladimir Lenin and Chairman Mao.

Maybe you should reconsider your understanding of the speech.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

The fallacy lies with you folks believing having darker skin meant they were not equal...

Who? Me?

I don't believe that shit. I have pointed out many times that I believe black people believe it, unfortunately. I have pointed out that Democrats/Leftists have been very quick to claim black people are not equal.

What blacks folks have been doing has been about trying to educate folks like you out of your fallacy.....

That's the problem. You assume I need to be educated out of some fallacy.

And why do you folks continue to try to condense MLK to one speech?? In your desire to minimize and erase history -- you goofy muthafuckas can't even be honest about a guy yall pretend to love

Oh, yes. The old White Men Can't Jump you-can't-hear-Jimi (Hendrix) argument.

Save it.

Did he say or did he NOT say he wanted racial equality?

Is it because if you were around in his day -- you wouldn't have loved him?? Easier to claim you were for something after the fact.....

And you are assuming that I would have hated him. I was not even born yet. How can ANYONE live up to that standard? You are judging me for actions of others long before I was born, SOLELY because of the color of my skin, you asshole.

When you folks try to reduce MLK to just a guy who had a simple message of love -- you are purposely bastardizing his message...his message was about LOVE AND

I studied the "I have a dream" speech in college, motherfucker. I know it better than you.

Blacksplain this to me:

The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom.

Marxists want to peddle the bullshit notion that America was founded when black slaves arrived not because it is true, but FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE of destructively criticizing the foundation so they can re-write the constitution after the communist manifesto.

YOU KNOW IT'S TRUE.

What did Dr. King say about the founding?

In a sense we've come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the "unalienable Rights" of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note, insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds."

But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. And so, we've come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.

That doesn't sound anything like somebody who believes the entire founding was flawed and must be re-constructed in the image of Vladimir Lenin and Chairman Mao.

Maybe you should reconsider your understanding of the speech.

This is how I know you little fragile cucks are triggered.....whenever yall whine "you hate all white people" -- that is how I know these facts are kicking you in the ass....


MLK isn't just one speech....it is an insult to keep reducing him to that....and yes, seeing as tho you claim to be a Conservative -- I can say with 10000% certainty you would have been opposed to him and calling him a "race hustler" and a"commie" -- just like conservatives did back then and still do today.......

Do you think liberals were fear-mongering about MLK being a commie marxist back then??

And who are the main ones today calling everything that triggers them Marxist, Communist, Socialist, blah blah....they do it on this very message board daily.....Conservatives....


That is why conservatives are so fragile and easily triggered about any true discussion of the past...no matter how recent it is.....

I think I will make a post about MLK and the filibuster just so I can continue schooling your goofy ass...

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

This is how I know you little fragile cucks are triggered....

That's the ticket. Lead with deflection and insults. That will convince others.

whenever yall whine "you hate all white people" -- that is how I know these facts are kicking you in the ass....
Right.

Forget the FACT that you accused my time-traveling, unborn self of hating King, SOLELY BECAUSE I AM WHITE.

MLK isn't just one speech....it is an insult to keep reducing him to that....and yes, seeing as tho you claim to be a Conservative -- I can say with 10000% certainty you would have been opposed to him and calling him a "race hustler" and a"commie" -- just like conservatives did back then and still do today.......

I do NOT claim to be a "conservative." I AM a LIBERAL (a real liberal, not the bastardized version on the left)(think-Thomas Jefferson/John Locke/Voltaire). You ASSUMED I am a "conservative" because I disagree with your bullshit.

And who are the main ones today calling everything that triggers them Marxist, Communist, Socialist, blah blah....they do it on this very message board daily.....Conservatives....

Because we can DIRECTLY TIE it all to communist/Marxists causes. Critical Race Theory? It's a subset of Critical Theory which is a strategy developed by the Marxist "Frankfurt School" in the 1930s. I have already proved that with cited sources REPEATEDLY, and yet, here the fuck you are. That's just ONE of countless examples.

That is why conservatives are so fragile and easily triggered about any true discussion of the past...no matter how recent it is.....

I think I will make a post about MLK and the filibuster just so I can continue schooling your goofy ass...

Oh, yes. We "conservatives" (I'm a liberal) are so "fragile" when we DON'T agree with your bullshit.

That's what this has come to. Agree with me or you are fragile.

You're just MAD because I refuse to accept your BULLSHIT framing of the "TRUE" discussion of the past.

You haven't schooled SHIT. You can make whatever bullshit snarky, sarcastic, Stephen-Colbert-esque thread you want. I am definitely getting to you.

 

[rightwinger]

What the 1836 Project allows to be taught in schools

1836. The Alamo
1960. Dallas Cowboys formed
1970. Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders formed

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

This is how I know you little fragile cucks are triggered....

That's the ticket. Lead with deflection and insults. That will convince others.

whenever yall whine "you hate all white people" -- that is how I know these facts are kicking you in the ass....
Right.

Forget the FACT that you accused my time-traveling, unborn self of hating King, SOLELY BECAUSE I AM WHITE.

MLK isn't just one speech....it is an insult to keep reducing him to that....and yes, seeing as tho you claim to be a Conservative -- I can say with 10000% certainty you would have been opposed to him and calling him a "race hustler" and a"commie" -- just like conservatives did back then and still do today.......

I do NOT claim to be a "conservative." I AM a LIBERAL (a real liberal, not the bastardized version on the left)(think-Thomas Jefferson/John Locke/Voltaire). You ASSUMED I am a "conservative" because I disagree with your bullshit.

And who are the main ones today calling everything that triggers them Marxist, Communist, Socialist, blah blah....they do it on this very message board daily.....Conservatives....

Because we can DIRECTLY TIE it all to communist/Marxists causes. Critical Race Theory? It's a subset of Critical Theory which is a strategy developed by the Marxist "Frankfurt School" in the 1930s. I have already proved that with cited sources REPEATEDLY, and yet, here the fuck you are. That's just ONE of countless examples.

That is why conservatives are so fragile and easily triggered about any true discussion of the past...no matter how recent it is.....

I think I will make a post about MLK and the filibuster just so I can continue schooling your goofy ass...

Oh, yes. We "conservatives" (I'm a liberal) are so "fragile" when we DON'T agree with your bullshit.

That's what this has come to. Agree with me or you are fragile.

You're just MAD because I refuse to accept your BULLSHIT framing of the "TRUE" discussion of the past.

You haven't schooled SHIT. You can make whatever bullshit snarky, sarcastic, Stephen-Colbert-esque thread you want. I am definitely getting to you.

Whenever you cucks claim "I'm a classical liberal" -- that is code for -- I am a conservative, I am just too embarrassed to admit it....plus, I don't like having to defend the conservative track record...


Meanwhile......you come down on the side of Conservatives, over and over again....

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

but it was.........

so yea, you are definitely trying to cancel historical facts.......

All the 1619 project does is state the basic fact that this nation didn't just magically begin in 1776 out of thin air....

It is a MOTHERFUCKING FACT that in 1619, the area currently called "The United States of America" was NOT. Rather, it was part of the British Empire.

It is also a MOTHERFUCKING FACT that 157 years later, this country was formed when the British Colonies in America SECEDED from the British Empire.

It is also a MOTHEFUCKING FACT that slavery in the United States of America ended 157 year ago --- CONVENIENTLY SYMETRICAL don't you think?

Say it with me, Biff --

In 1619, "America" was part of the British Empire. The fucking Brits started all that shit. 157 years later, the colonies seceded from the British Empire. 157 years later, I, Biff, got on USMB claiming that this country was founded 157 years before it was.

Get it?

Actually, it's a mf'ing fact that a small part of what would come to be known as the US was a part of what would come to be known as the British empire in 1619. Spain claimed more, and France and Holland also owned a piece.
The history of our culture, on this continent, predates the formation of the United States.
Slavery was introduced by the Spanish, first the Indians, then African slaves.
Somehow, this gets downplayed in the current narrative. New Orleans had slavery long before it was in the US.

The 1619 project is an attempt to undo the 'whitewashing' of US history.

In that spirit I support it.

 

[busybee01]

Gov. Greg Abbott signs 1836 Project into law, promotes ‘patriotic education’

AUSTIN, Texas (KAMR/KCIT) —— Monday, Governor Greg Abbott signed a law establishing the 1836 Project, a project that seeks to raise awareness about key events in the state’s history. Rep. Tan Parke…

www.myhighplains.com

"Monday, Governor Greg Abbott signed a law establishing the 1836 Project, a project that seeks to raise awareness about key events in the state’s history. Earlier this year, the state passed a bill that would ban the teaching of the 1619 Project which examines U.S. history from the date when enslaved people first arrived on American soil, marking that year as the country’s foundational date.

Right now, the project would only be taught at state parks, museums, and landmarks, but one local teacher is joining many across the state who are worried that this could make its way into the class. “It really important for students and educators to know that the Texas that we have today started well before 1836. Texas has a rich history with many positive things, but also many negative things that have to lead to our society now,” said Amarillo Education Association President Aaron Phillips."

This is the problem with the woke mob deep state critical race theory transgender libs -- they always want to bring up the negative parts of our history...I am born and raised in Texas; so I never got a chance to learn about Texas history in school except for the 2 mandated years every student is required to learn Texas history....but that wasn't real Texas history....now thanks to the 1836 project, we will finally be able to learn real Texas history....Sadly, the 1836 project won't be officially taught in schools, but hopefully it will be soon.....

And it bet not include anything about any flaws in our state's founding -- it definitely bet not include any references to the Texas Article of Secession either -- because that only causes division....it also bet not include anything about indigenous or Tejano people as if Texas was like their homeland; it's better for the sake of unity if we refer to them as illegal immigrants actually....The only true history of Texas we need to know is that Texas kicked a bunch of wetback ass and became a state in 1836 -- and then everybody had freedom..any deviation from that is basically cultural Marxism.

What you want is a Rebecca of Sunnybrooks Farms version of history. Obviously Abbott wants to keep Texans stupid.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

but it was.........

so yea, you are definitely trying to cancel historical facts.......

All the 1619 project does is state the basic fact that this nation didn't just magically begin in 1776 out of thin air....

It is a MOTHERFUCKING FACT that in 1619, the area currently called "The United States of America" was NOT. Rather, it was part of the British Empire.

It is also a MOTHERFUCKING FACT that 157 years later, this country was formed when the British Colonies in America SECEDED from the British Empire.

It is also a MOTHEFUCKING FACT that slavery in the United States of America ended 157 year ago --- CONVENIENTLY SYMETRICAL don't you think?

Say it with me, Biff --

In 1619, "America" was part of the British Empire. The fucking Brits started all that shit. 157 years later, the colonies seceded from the British Empire. 157 years later, I, Biff, got on USMB claiming that this country was founded 157 years before it was.

Get it?

Actually, it's a mf'ing fact that a small part of what would come to be known as the US was a part of what would come to be known as the British empire in 1619. Spain claimed more, and France and Holland also owned a piece.
The history of our culture, on this continent, predates the formation of the United States.
Slavery was introduced by the Spanish, first the Indians, then African slaves.
Somehow, this gets downplayed in the current narrative. New Orleans had slavery long before it was in the US.

The 1619 project is an attempt to undo the 'whitewashing' of US history.

In that spirit I support it.

1619 was not even CLOSE to the first slavery in North America. Likely not by 10,000 years.

The 1619 project is an attempt to re-write history in the image of the communist manifesto.

In that spirit, I will go down in a blaze of glory to destroy it on my way to Valhalla.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

but it was.........

so yea, you are definitely trying to cancel historical facts.......

All the 1619 project does is state the basic fact that this nation didn't just magically begin in 1776 out of thin air....

It is a MOTHERFUCKING FACT that in 1619, the area currently called "The United States of America" was NOT. Rather, it was part of the British Empire.

It is also a MOTHERFUCKING FACT that 157 years later, this country was formed when the British Colonies in America SECEDED from the British Empire.

It is also a MOTHEFUCKING FACT that slavery in the United States of America ended 157 year ago --- CONVENIENTLY SYMETRICAL don't you think?

Say it with me, Biff --

In 1619, "America" was part of the British Empire. The fucking Brits started all that shit. 157 years later, the colonies seceded from the British Empire. 157 years later, I, Biff, got on USMB claiming that this country was founded 157 years before it was.

Get it?

Actually, it's a mf'ing fact that a small part of what would come to be known as the US was a part of what would come to be known as the British empire in 1619. Spain claimed more, and France and Holland also owned a piece.
The history of our culture, on this continent, predates the formation of the United States.
Slavery was introduced by the Spanish, first the Indians, then African slaves.
Somehow, this gets downplayed in the current narrative. New Orleans had slavery long before it was in the US.

The 1619 project is an attempt to undo the 'whitewashing' of US history.

In that spirit I support it.

1619 was not even CLOSE to the first slavery in North America. Likely not by 10,000 years.

The 1619 project is an attempt to re-write history in the image of the communist manifesto.

In that spirit, I will go down in a blaze of glory to destroy it on my way to Valhalla.