From Heroes to Villains: The Untold Story of the Texas Rangers’ Violent Past
Between 1846 and 1910, over 6000 Mexicans were murdered or lynched in Texas. Compare this to the much more covered, researched, and taught number of African Americans murdered or lynched during the same time span, about 6500. While the numbers seem similar, there is a striking difference. In the 1910s, the height of anti-Mexican violence in the United States, there were only 250,000 Mexicans compared to nearly 10 million African Americans. This substantive difference has left anti-Mexican violence largely overshadowed by anti-Black violence in the modern day. While partially due to the covered-up history of anti-Mexican violence, the reason lies within an American
…show more content…
In order to ensure that the Anglo settlers would prosper, Rangers often blurred the lines between enforcing the territory's laws and practicing vigilantism. Targeting the “Indian Warriors” that had previously inhabited Texas, tribes including the Waco, Karankawa, Lipan Apache, Tonkawas, Kiowa, and the Comanche were all subject to violence and harassment. Fueled by the current American politics which had been ousting Indian tribes for decades, Rangers operated under the slogan “the only good Indian is a dead Indian,” killing hundreds of Indians, many of whom civilians, in battles leading up to the Mexican American War. However, Indian tribes were not the only groups that suffered under the rule of the Rangers in the mid 19th century. Escaped slaves from the South who were chasing freedom via the Rio Grande River were tracked and brutalized by Rangers. In the words of renowned historian Gary Clayton Anderson, the Rangers had embraced a “culture of war” that established violence as a necessary pillar for nation building in the Southwest. By the time the Mexican-American War concluded in 1848, Rangers had gained a reputation in the Southwest as abusers of authority that were guarded by impunity, a characteristic that made the Texas Rangers lethal throughout their …show more content…
The trigger happy Rangers were lauded for their expertise in protecting the borderlands using any means necessary, but today many historians, like Doug Swanson, highly disagree with their tactics and historical remembrance. In an interview with NPR, Swanson made it clear that the Rangers “didn’t invent police brutality, but perfected it … on the border” while also referring to the Rangers “as what we would now term death squads.” Through unjustifiable murders and constant harassment it took the Texas Rangers just 10 years to successfully change the borderlands from a semi autonomous cross cultural zone to a region guarded by a new political and social
After Finishing Sleuthing the Alamo Davy Crockets last stand and other mysteries of the Texas revolution one has to applaud James E. Crisp and his dedication of unlocking the past where Crisp investigates the fallacies and myths by exploring and decrypting and putting the puzzle together by researching and reviewing the work of Historians and the memoirs of history like Bill Groneman defense of a legend, the de la Pena’s memoir, General Urrea’s own diary published in 1838 the master thesis of Edward William Bartholomae. James E Crisp search for truths regarding the Texas revolution regarding Sam Houston’s speech at Refugio was Houston a racist was the Texas Revolution a race war, the mystery of Davy Crockett surrounding the death of a legend
The Texas Ranger’s are my favorite baseball team but I also like the Boston Red Sox. The Texas Rangers are my favorite baseball team, but I also like the Boston Red Sox. The Texas Rangers ' are my favorite baseball team, but I also like the Boston Red Sox. The Texas Ranger’s are my favorite baseball team, but I also like the Boston Red
(pg. 345-348) This book shows that there is much more to the “story” of the Alamo than what is flashed onto the big screen. Many of the details surrounding the main events have now been combined together in an eye-opening way.
Ripped from the fabric of American history, the truth of the Old West is far darker and less heroic than depicted when the fresh wounds from the American Civil War were still fresh and the expansion of the railroads encroached on the eroding territory of Native Americans in the name of “progress” and manifest destiny. The slaughtering grounds of Little Bighorn where General Armstrong Custer valiantly fought to the last man deflates into an ignorant move that Lakota warriors, led by Crazy Horse of the Lakota tribe, took advantage of to fight assimilation in the form of constricting reservations. The lawless land of the West where notorious criminals robbed banks and trains, while the heroic sheriffs ignited
In the book “Migra! A History of the U.S Border Patrol, author Kelly Lytle Hernandez describes the history of the U.S border patrol from the 1920s to the end of the twentieth century. Specifically, Hernandez writes about how the border patrol has changed its target or “suspect” from Chinese and European immigrants to Mexican people. In her book and through research of unexamined old material in the U.S and Mexico, Hernandez examines how Mexicans emerged as the United States “iconic illegal aliens” (Hernandez Pg. 2). In this paper I will examine Hernandez discussion of long term effects of border patrol discourses and practices in creating a prototypical suspect as well as compare her argument with that of Samual P. Huntington in his
The fact that militia culture was strong enough to force a compromise between regular Army desires, practical military necessity, and American cultural traditions shows how strong the National Guard truly is in American military heritage. It is tempting to view the logical progression of the National Defense Acts of 1903, 1908, and 1916 as a linear path to the present, but they were a series of raucous fights that ruined the careers of politicians and soldiers alike and altered the entire system. The Army, the Secretary of War, and the National Guard changed size and shape in this period, and the relationship between the President, the government, and the
In the provided excerpt, "Borderland, La Frontera," Gloria Anzaldúa uses historical memory to challenge dominant narratives surrounding the Mexican-American War. She revisits the historical context of the war and its impact on the borderlands, shedding light on the experiences and perspectives often overlooked or silenced by mainstream narratives. Anzaldúa uses historical context to clarify Mexico's response to the ongoing migration of the Anglos into Texas as an attempt at reclaiming their territory. However, as mentioned in the text, "The Battle of the Alamo, in which the Mexican forces vanquished the whites, became, for the whites, the symbol for the cowardly and villainous character of the Mexicans. It became (and still is) a symbol that legitimized the white imperialist takeover" (p.6).
Scribbles on Scrap: A Mission Command Analysis of the Battle of the Little Bighorn The massacre at the Little Bighorn in 1876 was one of the most recognizable battles in American history. The defeat of the 7th Cavalry Regiment and the slaughter of 268 Soldiers by the Sioux serves as an enduring subject of study for contemporary military professionals. The basic modus operandi for command principles in the times of the Indian Wars loosely mirrors the mission command philosophy of today; however, if we still lay credence to the efficacy of the mission command philosophy, how was it that a conventional force under the direction of a battle proven leader was defeated by an irregular enemy? In the end, Lieutenant Colonel George A. Custer’s complacent
Thirdly, a second reason the Mexican War was not justified because US soldiers were in a disputed area. According to Jesus Velasco Marquez from “A Mexican Viewpoint on the War With the United States,” he states that “From Mexico’s point of view, the annexation of Texas to the United States was inadmissible for both legal and security reasons.” As well as, “The American government acted like a bandit who came upon a
“The fighting in Bexar raged with a house-to-house assault unlike anything the Mexican army had before experienced” (Lee, n.d.). General Cos’ surrendered from the Alamo on December 9, 1835 with 200 of his men dead and many more wounded. The Mexican surrender and the siege of the Alamo brought immediate retaliation from Santa Anna. He quickly assembled a force of 8,000 men and pushed mercilessly towards Texas. He was determined to crush all opposition and teach the Texans a lesson (Lee,
As stated before, the US was justified in going to war with Mexico because of three reasons, Americans were killed, Texas was already annexed, and Manifest Destiny allows it. The United states had many superb reasons for going to war with Mexico. This essay is significant because it helps explain the United States’ choice to go to war with
Jesús Velasco-Márquez, a modern-day Mexican professor of studies wrote an article in 2006 about the Mexican-American War. He said, “US historians refer to this event as ‘The Mexican-American War’, while in Mexico, we prefer to use the term ‘The U.S. Invasion... From Mexico’s point of view, the annexation of Texas to the United States was inadmissible for both legal and security reasons. ’’’ (Velasco-Márquez, 12). During the time of the independence of Texas, Mexico was ruled by the dictator General Antonio López de Santa Anna.
week’s lesson we read, “Unearthing the Hidden Histories of a Borderlands Rebellion”, an essay by Benjamin Johnson. This essay starts off by describing the Plan of San Diego revolt that started in the summer of 1915. The plan was modeled to create a “liberating army of all races”, to create an “army” of Mexicans, Blacks, and Indians to in order to kill all white males. The Plan of San Diego revolt also called for this army to coup the United States government in Texas, Colorado, New Mexico, and California. Johnson believes that the coming of the railroad in 1904 was the critical local event that started this plan.
In the book Sleuthing the Alamo, by historian James E. Crisp we are faced with some surprising truths about the Texas Revolution as he draws attention to many facilities that have been said to be truths over the years. These facts are often covered by tales of racism and political correctness. Over the course of this engrossing interpretation of the Texas Revolution this historian works like a detective to bring light to the more difficult truths behind all the tales that many believe. I believe James E. Crisp’s thesis to be fairly straightforward. This historian wishes to bring truth to the light.
In Life Among the Piutes, sarah winnemucca hopkins describes what happens when soldiers came to their reservation based off what white settlers tell the government. The most shocking instance of this happened when Winnemucca encountered a group of soldier who told her the white settlers accused the natives of stealing cattle, “the soldiers rode up to their [meaning the Piute’s] encampment and fired into it, and killed almost all the people that were there… after the soldiers had killed but all bur some little children and babies… the soldiers took them too… and set the camp on fire and threw them into the flames to see them burned alive”(78). This is an abhorrent act that is unthinkable in a functioning society. The natives had done nothing but want to hold some shred of land from the settlers who had taken everything from them and are exterminated like vermin. This was something that stayed hidden from many white settlers because of its barbarism and by exposing it Winnemucca truly educates the reader, past and present, on how natives are