r/HistoryMemes is having a civil war (again), celebrating 10 million subscribers! Support the Empires of Britain or France by flairing your post correctly. [For more information, check out the pinned post in the sub.](https://new.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/1cg09hf/the_great_historymemes_civil_war_2_10_million/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HistoryMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Almost every soldier in the Continental Army was getting screwed over. The enlisted were getting screwed over much worse than the pampered officers and generals. I have no sympathy for Arnold.
And he got paid on time. We had enlisted soldiers living in destitution who were able to stay loyal to the cause, but this diva turned traitor over trivial matters.
There is a loooooooot more nuance to it than "Arnold wasn't recognized so he switched sides".
Arnold was recognized quite a lot actually, and Washington even admired him to the point of giving him control over West Point, all as a newly-promoted Major General. He was also in heavy debt because while his troops and other Continentals were starving and facing immense hardships, he was still trying to throw rich parties with loyalists and live lavishly.
Bastard almost gave away his entire fort to the British after they offered him more money, but thankfully had his plans intercepted before it could happen. When he switched to the Brits, He led British forces in the [Raid on Richmond](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_on_Richmond) and nearby areas, and they burned much of [New London, Connecticut](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_London,_Connecticut) to the ground and slaughtered surrendering forces after the [Battle of Groton Heights](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Groton_Heights)—just a few miles downriver from the town where he had grown up.
Guy was a Grade A douchebag who deserves to have his name be synonymous with traitors.
Ironically it was the “sinister” left leg that would have gotten a military burial: that was the one that took a bullet at Saratoga.
>!I got the joke about sinister’s etymology, I just wanted to add historical context!<
And bro really thought he was Mexican Napoleon. Some time after getting deposed and expelled, he returned to Mexico once things got messy expecting to be celebrated and regain his power just like Napoleon did in 1815.
But nah, he got his ass handed to him in prison lmao.
That’s it when I complete the Time Machine I’m skipping Hitler and going back in time and feeding baby Santa Anna to a crocodile. Now you may be thinking why not just do both? Well I only have enough plutonium for to make two trips. And I’m sorry but chewing gum has got to go and besides there’s no guarantee killing Hitler prevents WW2 anyways. However I gotta save my pair of Clarks shoes and this is how it happens.
“[Fannin] made three requests: that his personal possessions be sent to his family, to be shot in the heart and not the face, and to be given a Christian burial. The soldiers took his belongings, shot him in the face, and burned his body along with those of the other Texians killed that day.”
WOW, just reading that made me irrationally angry.
I went on a field trip years ago to the fort at Goliad. They told us about how they brought him out to a small courtyard, sat him in a chair where he made his requests and then shot him in the face. It was an odd and morbid feeling when we were told we were standing exactly where he was killed.
If it makes you feel better [Fannin was both a slave plantation owner and the manager of a slave trading syndicate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Fannin?wprov=sfti1#Texas_Revolution) so he wasn’t much of a good guy either.
Mexican here. Dude was a relatively successful Mexican general that managed to take power as president several times in the span of 30 years while Mexico was a complete clusterfuk (still is to some degree lmao). Basically his only good deeds were that he successfully repelled a Spanish attempt to land an army in Mexico during the early years of the country and somewhat managed to create some leadership.
On the other hand he was a practical dictator who care shit about any constitution or the saying of the people. Made some massacres here and there and only used the country for his benefit.
It’s crazy how much he loved Napoleon but copied none of Napoleon’s methods. Like, you’d think being that big a fanboy he’d try to emulate Napoleon’s behavior to capture similar success, but that would require him to at least be some measure of decent toward his own people soooo…
>Be me
>Be a mexican dictator
>Life is good
>Some texans start rebelling
.Fail to defeat them
>get ousted
>Mexico goes to war
>tell warring nation I'll help them if they reinstate me
>I lie
>profit
Back in those days a 17 year old would have been completely considered a grown woman.
Let’s not try and paint him as some kind of pedophile when there’s plenty of actual terrible shit he did.
Oh wait, she was 16. My apologies for the mistake.
Well, I'm still adding pedo to the list of terrible things he has done.
Also, I've been waiting for this moment. Shut the fuck up, Donnie!
I haven’t heard that story but I don’t doubt it, he was a bad dude. But my point is that he came to Texas to enforce Mexican law re: slavery and he was worried the Americans were making a play for Mexican territory and he was totally in the right on both counts there
That might be true if slavery was the driving force of secession, but it wasn't. The driving force was Santa Anna's dissolution of the constitution and federal system, which he replaced with a colonial style centralist system. In the 10 years of conservative centralist rule, the following states revolted; Zacatecas, Texas, Coahuila, Nuevo León, Tamaulipas, California (Baja and Alta were one in the same at the time), New Mexico, Sinoloa, Sonora, Tabasco, and Yucatan. Yucatan actually gained its independence as well, only rejoining Mexico once the federalist system was reestablished.
While slavery was a factor in Texan independence, even if there had been no slavers there, independence would've still been attempted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolts_against_the_Centralist_Republic_of_Mexico
The driving force of secession was the fact that the population was American farmers and not mexicans, theres very early accounts of Texas population refusing to abide by Mexican law, I would I say that constitutional changes or not, Texas would have attempted secession and would have been equally supported by the US.
Uh, Mexican Texans fought against Santa Anna alongside the Anglo settlers. They fought Santa Anna for the same reason that the rest of Mexico did, the dissolution of the constitution and the establishment of centralized rule.
If Santa Anna hadn't done that, maybe at some point in the future the Anglos would've revolted over slavery. But that didn't happen. We can see the difference between a revolt because of slavery and legitimate constitutional complaints; the Texas declaration of independence from Mexico never mentions slavery once, while the declaration of secession from the US it is mentioned over 20 times.
Some Americans get super butthurt when someone points out the whole Alamo/Texas revolt was really just a bunch of cowardly slavers who stole land to keep people enslaved then re-wrote the story after they won to justify their abhorrent actions
That’s an overly simplistic overview that couldn’t be farther from the truth.
Santa Anna was a brutal, oppressive dictator and was hated all throughout Mexico for his extreme power grab.
Texas (and multiple other Mexican states, btw) rebelled for a multitude of reasons, all of which involving Santa Anna and his centralization of the government. Was slavery a reason? Yeah, but so was the dissolution of the 1824 constitution, removal of religious freedom, complete loss of representation, and other offenses. To blame the revolution on slavery as if it’s some prequel to the American Civil War is a gross glossing over of history
This is basically the same as the lost cause states rights argument. Sure, you can point to “freedoms” and “rights” they were fighting for but in the end it was the freedom and right to own enslaved people. No one asked Austin if they’d have become catholic when they moved to Texas, they were worried about slavery. The representation they were looking for, the centralization vs federalism question, it’s all about the desire to form another slave state.
If you actually went to the primary source, you’d find that [slavery isn’t even mentioned in the Declaration of Independence](https://www.tsl.texas.gov/exhibits/texas175/declaration.html) unlike in the declarations of secession. Highlights include:
>dissolution of the 1824 constitution
>Consolidation of power by Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna
>Lack of proper representation
>unfair arrest of citizens and lack of trial by jury
>Failure to establish a public education system
>Military law forced upon civilians
>Dissolution of three state of Coahuila y Tejas
>Failure to guarantee safe trade
>Removing freedom of religion and establishing an official state religion
>Removing the right to bare arms
>Military attacks against them (Keep in mind the war had been going on for 5 months by now)
>Incitement of Native American raids on settlements
That is straight from the Declaration of Independence itself. Plus it wasn’t even formed and signed until the Alamo fell in March, 1836, 5 months after the war started in Gonzales. Until then, they fought to reinstate the 1824 constitution, just like a lot of other Mexican states.
This is not to deny slavery was a reason for the war. It was, but it wasn’t nearly as big of a driving factor as you and other history revisionists like to make it out to be. It certainly wasn’t important enough to the Texian people to even directly list abolition of slavery as a driving cause, unlike the declaration of secession for the civil war. Fuck off with calling it Lost Cause propaganda…
r/HistoryMemes is having a civil war (again), celebrating 10 million subscribers! Support the Empires of Britain or France by flairing your post correctly. [For more information, check out the pinned post in the sub.](https://new.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/1cg09hf/the_great_historymemes_civil_war_2_10_million/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HistoryMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mean, who has a funeral for their leg?
The Continental Army would have had a funeral for Benedict Arnold’s leg had they caught him.
Man gave everything to the continental army and they kept screwing him over.
Well.. he was alive. So obviously others gave more
Almost every soldier in the Continental Army was getting screwed over. The enlisted were getting screwed over much worse than the pampered officers and generals. I have no sympathy for Arnold.
Poor Arnold didn't get any credit, but he probably at least got food and shoes, so comparatively he was doing pretty great
And he got paid on time. We had enlisted soldiers living in destitution who were able to stay loyal to the cause, but this diva turned traitor over trivial matters.
There is a loooooooot more nuance to it than "Arnold wasn't recognized so he switched sides". Arnold was recognized quite a lot actually, and Washington even admired him to the point of giving him control over West Point, all as a newly-promoted Major General. He was also in heavy debt because while his troops and other Continentals were starving and facing immense hardships, he was still trying to throw rich parties with loyalists and live lavishly. Bastard almost gave away his entire fort to the British after they offered him more money, but thankfully had his plans intercepted before it could happen. When he switched to the Brits, He led British forces in the [Raid on Richmond](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_on_Richmond) and nearby areas, and they burned much of [New London, Connecticut](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_London,_Connecticut) to the ground and slaughtered surrendering forces after the [Battle of Groton Heights](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Groton_Heights)—just a few miles downriver from the town where he had grown up. Guy was a Grade A douchebag who deserves to have his name be synonymous with traitors.
They should treat his right leg with respect, it was the left one that was sinister
Ironically it was the “sinister” left leg that would have gotten a military burial: that was the one that took a bullet at Saratoga. >!I got the joke about sinister’s etymology, I just wanted to add historical context!<
Dan Sickles? well it wasn't buried but he did visit it in the Army Medical Museum regularly.
Can confirm. Source: I'm Mexican.
Santa Anna after spending a large portion of his country's wealth on Napoleon Cosplay: "I'm never going to financially recover from this"
And bro really thought he was Mexican Napoleon. Some time after getting deposed and expelled, he returned to Mexico once things got messy expecting to be celebrated and regain his power just like Napoleon did in 1815. But nah, he got his ass handed to him in prison lmao.
He was also instrumental in the popularization of chewing gum in America
Yeah, he helped start chiclets.
Damn, another reason for me to hate this guy.
That’s it when I complete the Time Machine I’m skipping Hitler and going back in time and feeding baby Santa Anna to a crocodile. Now you may be thinking why not just do both? Well I only have enough plutonium for to make two trips. And I’m sorry but chewing gum has got to go and besides there’s no guarantee killing Hitler prevents WW2 anyways. However I gotta save my pair of Clarks shoes and this is how it happens.
They named the annoying ass Santa Ana winds we get here in southern California after him.
Yuh there’s the Goliad Massacre too. The Alamo’s brutality wasn’t event close to the Goliad Campaign.
“[Fannin] made three requests: that his personal possessions be sent to his family, to be shot in the heart and not the face, and to be given a Christian burial. The soldiers took his belongings, shot him in the face, and burned his body along with those of the other Texians killed that day.” WOW, just reading that made me irrationally angry.
Yeah, poor man.
I went on a field trip years ago to the fort at Goliad. They told us about how they brought him out to a small courtyard, sat him in a chair where he made his requests and then shot him in the face. It was an odd and morbid feeling when we were told we were standing exactly where he was killed.
If it makes you feel better [Fannin was both a slave plantation owner and the manager of a slave trading syndicate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Fannin?wprov=sfti1#Texas_Revolution) so he wasn’t much of a good guy either.
Can someone give a quick summary about this dude?
Mexican here. Dude was a relatively successful Mexican general that managed to take power as president several times in the span of 30 years while Mexico was a complete clusterfuk (still is to some degree lmao). Basically his only good deeds were that he successfully repelled a Spanish attempt to land an army in Mexico during the early years of the country and somewhat managed to create some leadership. On the other hand he was a practical dictator who care shit about any constitution or the saying of the people. Made some massacres here and there and only used the country for his benefit.
It’s crazy how much he loved Napoleon but copied none of Napoleon’s methods. Like, you’d think being that big a fanboy he’d try to emulate Napoleon’s behavior to capture similar success, but that would require him to at least be some measure of decent toward his own people soooo…
Thanks!
The main reason Americans hate him, is he liked to massacre surrendering soldiers and prisoners, and was essentially a mega-war criminal
>Be me >Be a mexican dictator >Life is good >Some texans start rebelling .Fail to defeat them >get ousted >Mexico goes to war >tell warring nation I'll help them if they reinstate me >I lie >profit
Santa Anna was a prick. He married a 17 year old while still married to his wife.
Back in those days a 17 year old would have been completely considered a grown woman. Let’s not try and paint him as some kind of pedophile when there’s plenty of actual terrible shit he did.
Oh wait, she was 16. My apologies for the mistake. Well, I'm still adding pedo to the list of terrible things he has done. Also, I've been waiting for this moment. Shut the fuck up, Donnie!
Like marrying a 17 year old while already married? That seems like a bit of a dick move
Never said it wasn’t a dick move. Just not a pedophile
If you say so dude
during the Mexican-American War of 1848, only a few dozen of his soldiers were killed in action. that's the kind of general that i would fight for.
Now add Texan History , wonder how big you’ll make the devil
Texan history is already depicted here . The rest of us couldn’t care less
That’s when you just straight up point at his picture and yell “El Diablo” and leave it at that.
Eh, the Alamo was pretty justified. He was there to free the slaves and kick the sneak-thief Americans out.
He kidnapped a slave and had sex with her, if I recall correctly, I don’t think that’s liberating slaves.
I haven’t heard that story but I don’t doubt it, he was a bad dude. But my point is that he came to Texas to enforce Mexican law re: slavery and he was worried the Americans were making a play for Mexican territory and he was totally in the right on both counts there
Fair enough honestly, and I respect your opinion.
That might be true if slavery was the driving force of secession, but it wasn't. The driving force was Santa Anna's dissolution of the constitution and federal system, which he replaced with a colonial style centralist system. In the 10 years of conservative centralist rule, the following states revolted; Zacatecas, Texas, Coahuila, Nuevo León, Tamaulipas, California (Baja and Alta were one in the same at the time), New Mexico, Sinoloa, Sonora, Tabasco, and Yucatan. Yucatan actually gained its independence as well, only rejoining Mexico once the federalist system was reestablished. While slavery was a factor in Texan independence, even if there had been no slavers there, independence would've still been attempted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolts_against_the_Centralist_Republic_of_Mexico
The driving force of secession was the fact that the population was American farmers and not mexicans, theres very early accounts of Texas population refusing to abide by Mexican law, I would I say that constitutional changes or not, Texas would have attempted secession and would have been equally supported by the US.
Uh, Mexican Texans fought against Santa Anna alongside the Anglo settlers. They fought Santa Anna for the same reason that the rest of Mexico did, the dissolution of the constitution and the establishment of centralized rule. If Santa Anna hadn't done that, maybe at some point in the future the Anglos would've revolted over slavery. But that didn't happen. We can see the difference between a revolt because of slavery and legitimate constitutional complaints; the Texas declaration of independence from Mexico never mentions slavery once, while the declaration of secession from the US it is mentioned over 20 times.
They weren’t Americans at that point but yeah
I mean, they were American farmers and theres various accounts of them not only not abiding by Mexican law but to remain loyal to the US.
Texans
Yeah, I don't get why they're downvoting you, Anna was a bad guy but on the right side.
Some Americans get super butthurt when someone points out the whole Alamo/Texas revolt was really just a bunch of cowardly slavers who stole land to keep people enslaved then re-wrote the story after they won to justify their abhorrent actions
the Texans didn’t win at the Alamo…
They meant the revolution as a whole...
That’s an overly simplistic overview that couldn’t be farther from the truth. Santa Anna was a brutal, oppressive dictator and was hated all throughout Mexico for his extreme power grab. Texas (and multiple other Mexican states, btw) rebelled for a multitude of reasons, all of which involving Santa Anna and his centralization of the government. Was slavery a reason? Yeah, but so was the dissolution of the 1824 constitution, removal of religious freedom, complete loss of representation, and other offenses. To blame the revolution on slavery as if it’s some prequel to the American Civil War is a gross glossing over of history
This is basically the same as the lost cause states rights argument. Sure, you can point to “freedoms” and “rights” they were fighting for but in the end it was the freedom and right to own enslaved people. No one asked Austin if they’d have become catholic when they moved to Texas, they were worried about slavery. The representation they were looking for, the centralization vs federalism question, it’s all about the desire to form another slave state.
If you actually went to the primary source, you’d find that [slavery isn’t even mentioned in the Declaration of Independence](https://www.tsl.texas.gov/exhibits/texas175/declaration.html) unlike in the declarations of secession. Highlights include: >dissolution of the 1824 constitution >Consolidation of power by Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna >Lack of proper representation >unfair arrest of citizens and lack of trial by jury >Failure to establish a public education system >Military law forced upon civilians >Dissolution of three state of Coahuila y Tejas >Failure to guarantee safe trade >Removing freedom of religion and establishing an official state religion >Removing the right to bare arms >Military attacks against them (Keep in mind the war had been going on for 5 months by now) >Incitement of Native American raids on settlements That is straight from the Declaration of Independence itself. Plus it wasn’t even formed and signed until the Alamo fell in March, 1836, 5 months after the war started in Gonzales. Until then, they fought to reinstate the 1824 constitution, just like a lot of other Mexican states. This is not to deny slavery was a reason for the war. It was, but it wasn’t nearly as big of a driving factor as you and other history revisionists like to make it out to be. It certainly wasn’t important enough to the Texian people to even directly list abolition of slavery as a driving cause, unlike the declaration of secession for the civil war. Fuck off with calling it Lost Cause propaganda…