Talk:Córdova Rebellion

Rationale for editing Later Events section

The section here includes the following:

Despite the involvement of the Cherokee and the discovery of documents directly implicating Chief Bowl, Houston professed to believe the chief's denials and refused to order them arrested.

This strikes me both as a) inaccurate and b) assuming a subtle point-of view for these reasons: 1) the evidence surrounding these events only show the involvement of some Cherokee, not the community as a whole; 2) neither directly or otherwise did the discovery of the documents in question implicate Chief Bowl, but rather, they showed he had been subject to Mexican entreaties ("implicate" meaning to actually demonstrate guilt) and 3) there seems to be no reason to assume Houston only "professed" to believe the chief's denials ("profess" meaning to claim openly but often falsely.)

Also, the following:

In the wake of this and the publication of Rachel Plummer's narrative of her captivity among the Comanche, Texas's second president, Mirabeau B. Lamar, was less sympathetic toward the tribe and was convinced that the Cherokees could not be allowed to stay in Texas.

seemed to imply that, but for the Killough Massacre and other depredations, Lamar might ever have been more sympathetic to the Cherokee and only reluctantly "became convinced" of his expulsion-or-extermination policy. Not the case. Tejanoviejo (talk) 20:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)