Small Steps Toward Revolution: 1833 to 1835

"While Sam Houston watched and waited, Santa Anna tightened his grip on the Mexican government. One by one he dismantled the institutions of federalism, dissolving the state legislatures, disbanding the state militias, and finally doing away with the states altogether, demoting them to mere departments of the national government. Meanwhile he made the national government an instrument of his own authority. He repealed the liberal reforms of Gomez Farias and engineered elections that transformed the congress into his rubber stamp.

"The changes provoked resistance in various parts of the country. Federalists in Zacatecas, northwest of Mexico City, refused to comply with the order to disband the militia, insisting on retaining this last defense of states' rights. Santa Anna thereupon determined to teach the Zacatecans a lesson--the lesson he had learned from General Arredondo years earlier in Texas. He personally led an army against Zacatecas, crushing the militia before turning his men loose on the populace at large to make a brutal example of what insurgents could expect from him. The slaughter exceeded that of the Medina, and it included hundreds of women and children." (Brands, 236-7)

In September 1835, General Martin Perfecto de "Cos, speaking for Santa Anna, was demanding abject surrender. 'The people must unconditionally submit to whatever the government chooses to do for them; he lays down the principle that General Government have the right to force us to submit to any reform or amendments or alterations that congress may make in the constitution, &c.'" (252)

In reading about the history of Texas, and specifically the imprisonment of Stephen Austin for things which were written by him in letters to the ayuntamiento (town council) of San Antonio de Bexar - I am struck by similarities of the behavior of the government of the United States.

While I recognize that those who are designated "enemy combatants" in our current conflicts overseas have quite probably done more than simply write letters to the town council encouraging them to "coordinate with the other town councils of Texas in preparing to move unilaterally toward Texas statehood." (222) A statehood that Austin was seeking under the Mexican Government, not under the United States of America. (Sam Houston was one of the main movers in that direction.) The fact that "our government" has treated them in much the same way as the Mexican authorities treated Austin is undeniable.

Glancing back across recent history, it is easy to see certain patterns of behavior among people. Often those who seek to centralize power do so "for the good of the people." They are almost always wrapping themselves in the language of "the greater good." Admittedly, it is comforting to the historically uneducated. Most of us like to believe the best of people. We will bend over backwards to convince ourselves that some act is "necessary" to protect the public.

I wonder sometimes, are we as a society asking the wrong questions?

Perhaps instead of asking, "is torturing someone to find the 'alleged' bomb the right thing to do?"
Perhaps as Americans - or Texans - we should be asking, "When other nations have done these things to our ancestors, were they right?"

If the answer to the first question is easily, "yes." But the answer to the second question is easily, "no." I wonder, does that make you a hypocrite, or just a lazy thinker?

Bibliography :
Brands, H. W. Lone Star Nation: The Epic Story of the Battle for Texas Independence First Anchor Books Edition, 2005