"Fall of the Alamo" Topic

A few fought many and died for their cause on this day in 1836. Remember the brave.

and also remember those brave men of Mexico, who fought to prevent a state being taken from them.

and remember Juan Seguin and Jose Losoya and Gregorio Esparza and the other Tejanos who fought against Santa Anna in defense of constitutional liberty

Not to mention Lorenzo de Zavala, who helped write the Mexican constitution of 1824 which Santa Anna overthrew (and which flag flew over the Alamo) who then helped write the Texas constitution and was chosen as the first Vice President of the Republic of Texas.

It wasn't taking a state away from Mexico, not to start with, any more than Lexington and Concord were about winning independence. It was about free men organizing to resist oppression.

link

Lorenzo's wiki

Along with those free men, there were roughly 5,000 slaves in Texas. The Mexican government opposed slavery, but those free guys just loved the institution, by the time Texas became a state roughly 1/3 of the population was enslaved.

Remember the Alamo.

Watched this yesterday
youtu.be/V2dbpr52QaU

+1 lloyd.

Even though some speak ill of the Alamo defenders, their bravery and valor is to be admired. They were not perfect men, but they gave their lives to protect their loved ones and their freedom from a brutal dictator.

And don't forget Santa Anna, the inventor of chewing gum, but who failed even at that.

link

Don't recall speaking ill of anyone. If speaking historical truth is speaking ill, guilty as charged.

Santa Anna was also known for his dictatorial rule, making use of the military to dissolve congress multiple times. He was also known for his ostentatious style of rule. During his last presidency he began to go under the title of His Most Serene Highness.

His legacy has subsequently come to be viewed as profoundly negative with historians and many Mexicans ranking him as "the principal inhabitant even today of Mexico's black pantheon of those who failed the nation"

In 1835, López de Santa Anna replaced the 1824 constitution with the new constitutional document known as the "Siete Leyes" ("The Seven Laws"). López de Santa Anna did not involve himself with the conservative centralists as they moved to replace the federal constitution that dispersed power to the states with a unitary power in the hands of the central government, seemingly uneasy with their political path. "Although he has been blamed for the change to centralism, he was not actually present during any of the deliberations that led to the abolition of the federalist charter or the elaboration of the 1836 Constitution."[43][44]

Several states openly rebelled against the changes including Alta California, Nuevo México, Tabasco, Sonora, Coahuila y Tejas, San Luis Potosí, Querétaro, Durango, Guanajuato, Michoacán, Yucatán, Jalisco, Nuevo León, Tamaulipas, and Zacatecas. Several of these states formed their own governments: the Republic of the Rio Grande, the Republic of Yucatán, and the Republic of Texas. Their fierce resistance was possibly fueled by reprisals López de Santa Anna committed against his defeated enemies.[45] The New York Post editorialized that "had [López de Santa Anna] treated the vanquished with moderation and generosity, it would have been difficult if not impossible to awaken that general sympathy for the people of Texas which now impels so many adventurous and ardent spirits to throng to the aid of their brethren."[46]

The Zacatecas militia, the largest and best supplied of the Mexican states, led by Francisco García Salinas, was well armed with .753 caliber British 'Brown Bess' muskets and Baker .61 rifles. But, after two hours of combat on 12 May 1835, López de Santa Anna's "Army of Operations" defeated the Zacatecan militia and took almost 3,000 prisoners. He allowed his army to loot Zacatecas for forty-eight hours. After conquering Zacatecas, he planned to move on to Coahuila y Tejas to quell the rebellion there, which was being supported by settlers from the United States.[citation needed]

Might be an interesting game scenario:
link

Santa Anna's army of 3600 vs 3000 militia, both sides with brown besses and Baker rifles.

Well, EB, he lost Texas.

Of course the United States is rich because we stole all the good parts from Mexico: the parts with all the roads.

So if Santa Anna had prevailed all the slaves in Texas could have been promoted to peons.

link

Sorry, but modern attitudes and sensibilities about forced labor and involuntary servitude cannot be read back into the past very far without doing INJUSTICE (yes) to our ancestors. And while we can congratulate ourselves on our evolved morals about race and servitude, we can also bemoan our loss of moral vision in other areas such as the very young and the old.

Plus, of course, it was THEIR struggles that got us where we are today. So less self-righteousness, por favor.

"There are those in present day America wishing for someone to "dissolve Congress". In fact it was tried recently. 🙄"

Really? When?….

Uh, January 6th comes to mind.

Better be watching Tucker tonight. It was no insurrection.

Hey EB, your other name wouldn't be John, would it?

And yeah, if the US hadn't acquired Texas and California, just imagine how advanced they'd be today! Just imagine!!

No. Tucker is destroying the credibility of the J6 narrative.

If you feel that guilty about things, give your land and wealth to Mexico. It should clear those guilty feelings right up. 😄

Oh and if you don't live here, give anyway. Mexico would appreciate overseas possessions.

I've never found anyone who feels "that" guilty. 😉

Yeah, it is easy to condemn an evil that has been defeated. Costs nothing and lets you feel virtuous.

So, correct me if I'm wrong. If you owned slaves, you're never right. You can fight against a government that dissolved the constitution. A general who executed prisoners. A general that allowed the sack of a city, in his own country no less. A general/government that oppressed it's own people and had a caste system that counted those of Spanish decent as far higher than those of Indian decent. But, since they owned slaves they're automatically wrong.

I'll stop before I become insulting.

Dn J, yes, that seems to be the underlying principle.

Thanks, John. I plan to. But of course there are also many "drivers of negroes" who do not and did not yelp for liberty. Slavery was indemic, though less so in the Anglo world. So of course those advocating liberty would have direct knowledge and experience with slavery.

Jefferson is the prime example, and Washington: men who understood the tension between their ideals and their realities and wrestled with the implications.

It is the worst sort of unhistorical naivete and arrogance to agree with Dr. Johnson's snobbery. What did HE do to make the world freer?

No, I would not expect that, which is the point. Easy enough to poke fun at better men who wrestle with complexities and actually, you know, BUILD something. And free a lot of people. And that truth applies to Crockett and Houston as well as to GW and TJ.

About "whataboutism" --
Isolated facts are mostly meaningless. CONTEXT is placing them in relations -- comparisons -- with other facts.

If I tell someone ignorant of baseball that a MLB player bats .300 -- which means he gets on base 3 out of 10 times at bat -- is that good, bad, or avergae? Well, it is very good, which you only know by comparing it to what others do.

Yes, a tu quoque argument is fallacious. But comparing an imperfect man against similar but MORE imperfect men is a reasonable and useful bit of contextualization.

For someone adhering to academic rigor, facts, multiple sources, etc (and I'm not being sarcastic, you have well demonstrated your wide range of reading), your choice of TV viewing is surprising.

Fox is far from perfect but I trust it more than the other networks. That said, I actually don't watch much television. I consume a lot of news from a variety of sources. I especaily like realclearpolitics.com. I read several blogs daily, and they often direct me to other stories -- often from leftwing sources. I read several serious journals -- FIRST THINGS, for example. I read a LOT of stories from, e.g., the ATLANTIC, mostly to disagree with them, but not always.

I'm no fan of David French but he had a recent piece in ATLANTIC (iirc) that observed that today there are TWO Overton windows. Each ideology has its own range of acceptable views. (If you are not familiar with Overton windows, check wiki.) That is a good way of expressing what we all notice; we can hardly debate each other because we share very few values, seemingly. That is a very bad thing, and likely to get worse.

I DO try to understand the other side. I have to, as several of my dearest friends and family are hard core lefties, while about half of the family agrees with me. They are intelligent and well-educated one and all (and also devout Christians) so I KNOW they are not nuts. But their views are. I have spent decades trying to understand them and read a LOT of what they read.

This thread started as ‘Remember the Brave'

I think I will, and leave it at that.

Along with those free men, there were roughly 5,000 slaves in Texas. The Mexican government opposed slavery, but those free guys just loved the institution, by the time Texas became a state roughly 1/3 of the population was enslaved.

As opposed to Mexico, where 100% of the population were essentially the slaves of one man— Santa Anna. (That's what a dictatorship is— the leader owns the State, and the State owns everybody else.) The difference between a peon and a slave is simply a P for an S, an E for a L, an O for an A and a N for a V, with a final letter chopped off as excess.

Parzival nails it as usual.

I will restate my final line. The context isn't relevant, so it can apply to any time, place, or POV. Make of it what you will:

Only the truth is covered up. No one tries to hide a lie.

Thank you Deucy. You got the point. There were brave men on both sides.

Well, of course there were brave men on both sides. The 2003 ALAMO, a marvelous film, is pretty fair to both sides.

Fuggetaboutit

link

OC, we've done that. A dubious book. Which WILL be forgotten soon enough while the Alamo remains celebrated.

I AM excited at the upgrades in the Alamo presentation in San Antonio. Loved what I saw new, two years ago, and there's more coming.

Houston was a friend to the Cherokee as well.

link
Houston and the Cherokees and other native nations

Before the Texas Revolution, the Alabama–Coushatta Tribe were among Houston's allies. Earlier, they had crossed the Sabine River into what was then part of New Spain in 1780 and fought against the Spanish during the Mexican War of Independence. They were pivotal in the surrender near San Antonio on April 1, 1813 (Battle of Alazan Creek).[77][j] In 1836, they provided provisions for people who passed through their villages in the Runaway Scrape, while fleeing Antonio López de Santa Anna's army. They were also guides for Houston's army. Houston negotiated a treaty for the tribes between the Sabine and Neches Rivers[77][78] called the Cherokee Indian Treaty of February 23, 1836.[79]

Remembered an old thread I read years ago. Interesting discussion here

link

about a possible rifle from the Alamo (starts at page 10)
Sadly the pictures on page 13 are no longer available.

"I AM excited at the upgrades in the Alamo presentation in San Antonio"

This guy is excited too!

YouTube link