Is Texas' Military Reputation Overrated?

[Oberon]

I was wondering about it because during the Texas secession thread somebody claimed that as an independent state Texas would be in the top ten in the world military-wise. I was wondering why somebody would think that so I made a thread discussing it.

Yes, we could tell it was just another troll thread posted for the usual astro-turfers with agendas and biases. Some of us just chose to ignore the general ignorance and snarky gibberish.

 

[Fishking]

I was wondering about it because during the Texas secession thread somebody claimed that as an independent state Texas would be in the top ten in the world military-wise. I was wondering why somebody would think that so I made a thread discussing it.

Oh...I guess that would depend on if they got to keep all the military assets that technically belong to the federal government. Say they get to keep all military bases and equipment then they'd be pretty powerful and, in the context of a lot of other nations, there isn't a lot of competition.

 

[Oberon]

From the mid-1700's to 1819...Texas and Mexico in the Southwest were very sparely populated. Migration into Texas did not begin until after 1845 when Texas could issue land grants and continued lightly until just before the Civil War...but even then Texas' population was still sparse.

I wasn't aware they couldn't issue land grants from 1835 on; not doubting it but just never heard about that and haven't looked into it. Texas did have larger homestead policies than the usual U.S. ones, some 2,400 acres or so out on the Plains, and the state retained all of its lands after statehood, with what little Federal lands it has now given to the Feds by the state itself, except for the Federal assumptions along the rivers that came along later, and applied to the entire country, which is why so much of the empty land in Texas is not Federally administered but state run; this was a great benefit when oil started being found around the state, and funded the state university system, among other things. Texas laws on riparian rights still follow Spanish law, where the state laws apply, as do many other laws.

 

[SailaWay]

Oh...I guess that would depend on if they got to keep all the military assets that technically belong to the federal government. Say they get to keep all military bases and equipment then they'd be pretty powerful and, in the context of a lot of other nations, there isn't a lot of competition.

and many of the men are long term federal military men with the same training and they can train the rest of the men in texas to be equal to federal men...... BUT BUT BUT there are very few federal men since this is conservatives against liberals.. ITS THE men that are the conservatives

 

[SailaWay]

War? Secession? Hasn't happened, and won't ever happen - you're urinating in the wind here ...

there will be no war..... but for sure 30 conservative states seceding and these are most of the men of the nation....NO war because of NO contest... they can secede without any problems same as quebec trying to secede from canada and same as scotland trying to secede from UK... takes 50% of the vote plus 1.... this is not like the north and south issue

 

[Chomsky]

there will be no war..... but for sure 30 conservative states seceding and these are most of the men of the nation....NO war because of NO contest... they can secede without any problems same as quebec trying to secede from canada and same as scotland trying to secede from UK... takes 50% of the vote plus 1.... this is not like the north and south issue

There's not going to be a secession. And you're wrong in your vote angle.

 

[SailaWay]

There's not going to be a secession. And you're wrong in your vote angle.

the clues are THERE and before everyone can see this go bet with putting money in the stock market stock that would go with secession the best... the more people thinks on this issue the more they will see what this REALLY IS... not the north and south issue at all and very easy for conservatives to secede from liberals ... conservatives have all the power

 

[Chomsky]

the clues are THERE and before everyone can see this go bet with putting money in the stock market stock that would go with secession the best... the more people thinks on this issue the more they will see what this REALLY IS... not the north and south issue at all and very easy for conservatives to secede from liberals ... conservatives have all the power

Texas cannot secede, and definitely not by vote.

 

[Sherman123]

Texas has a bit of a reputation as a military powerhouse, thanks in large part to the brief time they spent as an independent country. But does the myth really live up to the hype.

I've been thinking about this since the secession thread, and I don't think so. Here's my case.

A. The Texans broke away from Mexico. Now, no offense to Mexicans--- they are pretty solid on the defense--- but they aren't exactly Wehrmacht caliber foes. In addition, Texas is in El Norte, and Mexico City at the time couldn't even secure the loyalties of Mexicans, much less a bunch of transplanted Yankees in a land where Mexican power projection was limited at best.

B. The Mexican commander, Santa Anna, was a buffon. He's not making anybody's top ten generals list.

C. The Mexican Army was vastly overconfident, to the point of taking a siesta mid campaign and letting the rebels annihilate them. Plus, they pissed off the Yankees with the needless brutality at the Alamo and Golidad(thanks Santa Anna!)

D. In the next big war, aka the Civil War, a grand total of three or four battles were fought on Texan soil before Texas surrendered. Hardly impressive.

I'm not really aware of this reputation. Is this a thing?

 

[Gaius46]

That's a cannon?

And who the hell uses a cannon in 2016?

Texans apparently.

 

[Chomsky]

Texans apparently.

And only in their dreams, at that.

N.B. The OP!

 

[Gaius46]

Texans apparently.

Should'be known someone else would have said that before me.......

 

[Gaius46]

Idk for a flag designed 180 years ago seems pretty close

Damn. Standing behind that thing when it goes off isn't going to do your gonads any good. Didn't y'all ever hear of Newton's 3rd law down there?

 

[1751Texan]

A UT professor has a decent book on the subject, Let There Be Towns, that pretty much makes the Mexicans' claims and the whole 'Aztlan' nonsense on the former Spanish territories more than just a little ridiculous; there is a reason why they were desperate to attract European and American colonists to Texas. It was the only way they were going to settle it and keep it. They couldn't find many Mexicans who would be caught dead north of Tampico. Santa Anna then came along and tried to extort far more from the settlers than the original deal allowed, and the rest is history, of course. The author couldn't find more 5 or 10 thousand in the entire Spanish territories north of the Rio Grande to Oregon, and that's by counting soldiers and mission slaves. The Valley had a few, and Santa Fe of course, but they hardly considered themselves 'Mexican', they were so isolated.

I'll disagree in one sense. Settlers that came directly from the Spain or came up through New Spain..never considered themselves...Mexicans. Or Mexico Their native country. Mexico was but a slice in time.

 

[SailaWay]

Texas cannot secede, and definitely not by vote.

who says they cannot...remember the 40% conservatives in new york are the more men in ny... and the most powerful

remember law enforcement is conservatives as well as the military.... who says they cannot secede?? NO CONTEST this is not like the north and south issue with men against men.. THESE ARE THE MEN...30 conservatives states of america will form the greatest nation

 

[Chomsky]

who says they cannot...remember the 40% conservatives in new york are the more men in ny... and the most powerful

remember law enforcement is conservatives as well as the military.... who says they cannot secede?? NO CONTEST this is not like the north and south issue with men against men.. THESE ARE THE MEN...30 conservatives states of america will form the greatest nation

The U.S. Constitution & the Texas Constitution.

 

[1751Texan]

I wasn't aware they couldn't issue land grants from 1835 on; not doubting it but just never heard about that and haven't looked into it. Texas did have larger homestead policies than the usual U.S. ones, some 2,400 acres or so out on the Plains, and the state retained all of its lands after statehood, with what little Federal lands it has now given to the Feds by the state itself, except for the Federal assumptions along the rivers that came along later, and applied to the entire country, which is why so much of the empty land in Texas is not Federally administered but state run; this was a great benefit when oil started being found around the state, and funded the state university system, among other things. Texas laws on riparian rights still follow Spanish law, where the state laws apply, as do many other laws.

You are correct the granting began before 1845...but my point is that it took off in the years after '45. I stand corrected.

In 1841 "fourth class" headright certificates of 640 acres for family heads and 320 acres for single men were granted conditionally to residents who immigrated to Texas between January 1, 1840, and January 1, 1842. A total of 36,876,492 acres was granted by the republic in headright certificates. In order to attract settlers, the Republic of Texas also made colonization contracts with various individuals to establish colonies in the republic and receive payment in land. In addition to large grants made directly to the contractors, settlers in such colonies were granted 640 acres each, if heads of families, or 320 acres, if single. Land grants made under colonization contracts amounted to 4,494,806 acres. As a further inducement to settlers, in 1845 the Congress of the republic passed the first Pre-emption Act, which gave to persons who had previously settled upon and improved vacant public lands, or who might thereafter settle upon and improve them, the right to purchase (pre-empt) up to 320 acres. Pre-emptors, or homesteaders, were required to cover their locations with valid certificates within three years. Under the state government this period was extended to January 1, 1854.

 

[1751Texan]

who says they cannot...remember the 40% conservatives in new york are the more men in ny... and the most powerful

remember law enforcement is conservatives as well as the military.... who says they cannot secede?? NO CONTEST this is not like the north and south issue with men against men.. THESE ARE THE MEN...30 conservatives states of america will form the greatest nation

Texas signed away their right to secede when it petitioned the Union for re-admittance.

 

[Oberon]

I'll disagree in one sense. Settlers that came directly from the Spain or came up through New Spain..never considered themselves...Mexicans. Or Mexico Their native country. Mexico was but a slice in time.

True. My wife's family still holds title to a substantial piece of a Spanish land grant to one of their ancestors. It was largely worthless until the 1950's when oil and gas was found on it and they found themselves considerably wealthy almost overnight, just from selling leases alone. The 'old man', her grandfather, kept pretty much to his old routines even after that, didn't even buy a new truck; all the relatives didn't do so, however ..lol

You are correct the granting began before 1845...but my point is that it took off in the years after '45. I stand corrected.

Thanks for the cite.

 

[Oberon]

I'm not really aware of this reputation. Is this a thing?

Texans volunteered for wartime military ramp ups in a larger percentage re eligible population than most states throughout its history, until recently; the flood of criminal illegal aliens and their offspring, along with the big influxes of 'Red River wetbacks', and lately Californians has altered that a lot lately, though, via demographic change. Texas was a 'yellow dog' democratic state until the 1980's or so, and is still a liberal state, it just doesn't vote Democratic so much any more because the Party turned itself into a racist freak show and is no longer a liberal Party, but a neo-fascist hate group now.

 

[Tigerace117]

Yes, we could tell it was just another troll thread posted for the usual astro-turfers with agendas and biases. Some of us just chose to ignore the general ignorance and snarky gibberish.

Your that Neo Confederate guy, right? I don't particularly care what you say man, so go on ahead.

 

[Tigerace117]

Oh...I guess that would depend on if they got to keep all the military assets that technically belong to the federal government. Say they get to keep all military bases and equipment then they'd be pretty powerful and, in the context of a lot of other nations, there isn't a lot of competition.

That's partially true, I guess. But gear alone doesn't make a superpower. Look at Saudi Arabia.

 

[Tigerace117]

I'm not really aware of this reputation. Is this a thing?

It seems to be.

 

[apdst]

Texas has a bit of a reputation as a military powerhouse, thanks in large part to the brief time they spent as an independent country. But does the myth really live up to the hype.

I've been thinking about this since the secession thread, and I don't think so. Here's my case.

A. The Texans broke away from Mexico. Now, no offense to Mexicans--- they are pretty solid on the defense--- but they aren't exactly Wehrmacht caliber foes. In addition, Texas is in El Norte, and Mexico City at the time couldn't even secure the loyalties of Mexicans, much less a bunch of transplanted Yankees in a land where Mexican power projection was limited at best.

B. The Mexican commander, Santa Anna, was a buffon. He's not making anybody's top ten generals list.

C. The Mexican Army was vastly overconfident, to the point of taking a siesta mid campaign and letting the rebels annihilate them. Plus, they pissed off the Yankees with the needless brutality at the Alamo and Golidad(thanks Santa Anna!)

D. In the next big war, aka the Civil War, a grand total of three or four battles were fought on Texan soil before Texas surrendered. Hardly impressive.

There were five battles and the Federal lost three of them.

There was also The Texas Brigade in The Army of Northern Virginia that fought with distinction. It took the Devil's Den at Gettysburg.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Brigade

In WW1 and WW2 The 36th Infantry Division fought with distinction.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/36th_Infantry_Division_(United_States)

Audie Murphy, Walton Walker, Doris Miller, Ben McCulloch, Chester Nimitz, Albert Sydney Johnston, Chris Kyle, Marcus Luttrell, Lucian Truscott, David "Tex" Hill, Claire Chenault and Harlon Block were all Texans.

I'd say her rep is safe.

 

[Tigerace117]

There were five battles and the Federal lost three of them.

There was also The Texas Brigade in The Army of Northern Virginia that fought with distinction. It took the Devil's Den at Gettysburg.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Brigade

In WW1 and WW2 The 36th Infantry Division fought with distinction.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/36th_Infantry_Division_(United_States)

Audie Murphy, Walton Walker, Doris Miller, Ben McCulloch, Chester Nimitz, Albert Sydney Johnston, Chris Kyle, Marcus Luttrell, Lucian Truscott, David "Tex" Hill, Claire Chenault and Harkin Block were all Texans.

Is say her rep is safe.

A whole five battles, huh. You know what places like Virginia or Tennessee called that? Spring.

The Texas Brigade may have taken Devil's Den.... But what did Devil's Den get the Confederacy in the long run? Did it win Gettysburg for the Confederacy?