What, exactly, is the rationale for establishing "sanctuary cities?"

Of course I have a cite.

Texas didn't come back to the US until the US Troops came and put their insurrection down.

Heh. What the hell does the civil war have to do with anything that was happening in 1829? I'll answer that for you: NOTHING.

It's typical that you evade answering and just drag some red herring non sequitur in instead, eh, Max?

BFD

Were the black nations of Africa welcoming white settlers in 1861?

The height of racism is to suggest that whites are the font of all the evil in history.

We are all humans and good and bad.

Try to keep up Finn.

1. Layman has an obsession with Texas, I am just challenging his historical revisionism. He seems to be fixated on the year 1829-- the year that Mexico abolished Slavery. This motivated Texas to secede from Mexico. Texas then seceded from the United States in 1860 (after joining as a slave state in 1845) to be part of the rebellion against the Union. Slavery was at the center of this. The government of Texas used the phrase "supremacy of the White race" without irony.

That belief was at the core of the state of Texas. And again, it was Layman that incessantly brought Texas into this discussion.

2. Nations in Africa in 1861, really? I assume that you took history in school. Have you forgotten what was happening in Africa in 1861?

3. Don't blame me for making this thread about race. Go back and look at Layman's posts on this thread. I bet 80% of them, at least, have to do with ethnicity. I would be more than happy to talk about law and politics and communities and how undocumented immigrants benefit the economy and why the immigration law is so messed up.

Layman wants to talk about how certain ethnic groups are dangerous.

From what I hear-tell, there's still an active and lucrative "slave trade" goin down in Africa (and other places) to this very day, eh, Finn?

You haven't "responded to jack-****, Max. Read my last post. Composing and posting some irrelevant garbage is NOT being responsive to the question, sorry.



"Revisionism!?" You mean what you're doing, that it? Most historians would at least understand that 1829 comes before 1861. Maybe some "revisionist" historians don't, I don't know.

Try not to be such a prig max.

You have, on this site, consistently made arguments that "whites" are bigoted.

Somewhere along the line, you decided that you have some spiritual affinity to the "brown" skinned people of Mexico. With due respect to you, I'm not going to go into theories about your family life that you have detailed for all of us.

I'm not particularly proud of being "white," but I sure as hell am not ashamed of it, and if "black," "brown," "yellow," and "red" people get to be proud of their color than I see no reason why a "white" person shouldn't be as well.

I truly am sick of what is actually racism directed at "whites" because it is now somehow fashionable.

Decrying racism as a racist is terrible and above all historically ignorant.

Bullshit. I have never made the argument that White people are any more or less bigoted than any other human being. I have argued the exact opposite (although I am not sure if I can find an example on this site).

When you use the perceived criminality of Hispanic people as an argument against immigration, you are being bigoted.

What Layman writes is bigoted. I have no way of knowing his race. I have been a bit curious because of his avatar. Layman's race doesn't matter one bit. He says some pretty ugly things about people of certain ethnicities.

And you are still defending him.

Well, I guess we have to agree to disagree, except that I have read a myriad of your posts going on about how Americans are bigoted about Muslims and Christians are bigoted etc etc etc.

Do you mean to tell me that you included all the non-white Americans and Christians in your condemnations?

EDIT: Oh, and BTW nice dodge on my other points.

There's that stunning hypocrisy again, Finn, but you are hardly the only one.

Are you really this dense?

I'm not defending him or anything he posts. I wrote I like him. I like you too; does that mean I am your defender?

You, quite obviously, take great pride in the fact that you have challenged "left-wing" posts in this forum. Do you want a medal? You're trying too hard.

I post comments for which I am responsible.

That's it.

See if you can follow this little historical timeline, eh, Max?

1. 1821: Mexico get independence from Spain. In the process it gets the right to Spain's ancient "claim" to land, including but not limited to what are now the states of Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona.

2. 1821-1829. There are virtually no Spaniards in these states and Mexico has no control whatsoever over the incessant raids from these "states," into other (further south) parts of Northern Mexico by native americans. Mexico therefore actively recruits immigrants from the USA to move into Texas so that they can provide a "buffer zone" between the Native Americans and the rest of the country.

3. 1829-35. By 1829, there are more Americans in Texas than Mexicans, so in that year Mexico makes all further immigration by US citizens into Mexico illegal. But the American just keep encouraging their homeys from the US to truck on in illegally, which they do. By 1835, the Americans have the Mexicans in Texas greatly outnumbered.

4.1835. The Texans then declare independence from Mexico and proceed to kick their sorry ass.

5. 1836. Santa Ana concedes defeat and Texas becomes an independent nation

6. 1845. Texas annexes itself to the USA and become the 28th State.

7. Oh, yeah....this was all before 1861. Who the **** knew!?

Wow, are you really this ignorant of history, Finn?

By 1900 much of Africa had been colonized by seven European powers—Britain, France, Germany, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, and Italy.


And the USA had long before [1823] warned them all to stay out of America's private raping and pillaging lands reserve.

Get fucked JTT

You seem to have completely whitewashed (yeah, I did that) this history. You don't mention slavery in spite of the fact that it was at the center of the history of Texas.

In 1829, Texas left Mexico because of slavery. They passed laws ensuring White Supremacy. Free Black people had to get special permission to live in Texas and could not own property.
In 1845, Texas joined the US as a Slave State.
In 1860, Texas joined the Confederacy as a Slave State.

From 1829 to 1861, Texas was founded on White supremacy... a term they themselves used.

Max, your claim was that U.S. citizens in Texas had absolutely no loyalty to the U.S. Nothing you've said even addresses that.

And that wasn't even the question to begin with. Did these U.S. citizens in Texas have any loyalty to Mexico?

Yes or no.

An utterly ignorant and completely erroneous claim.

Texas was "founded" in 1519 by Spaniards, who aint exactly white. Slavery had nothing to do with it.

Well, they left Mexico in 1829... so I would say that they had no loyalty to Mexico.
They joined the US in 1945 and then seceded from the US in 1861 and fought against the US in the Civil War.

So maybe for 16 years between 1845 and 1861 they were loyal because during that time they could own slaves. We don't actually know what their level of loyalty was during those long 16 years, but they sure gave it up pretty fast.

In any point, Texas described itself as representing the supremacy of the White race. And there decision to leave both Mexico and the US had to do with slavery (they left Mexico the very year that slavery was abolished).

This discussion is amusing me. But we are driving poor Finn mad.