Remember the Alamo?

[Eric Philson]

Just wanted to see what response this article would arouse. http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44168
Revisionism.... :bang:

[Sponsored Links]

[John Bridge]

You tellin' me they didn't even mention the fact that John Wayne died at the Alamo? :D

Like most revisionism, it's partly true but not totally true. Some "Texicans," as they called themselves did have slaves at the time, and it was one of the sources of unrest, not the greatest, though. Most of the "farmers" held no slaves.

One of the biggest problems was that there were so many Anglos flowing into the province. This caused the Mexicans to suspect that one day there could be a move to join the U.S. Texas was huge and sparcely populated at the time, and the Mexican government was incapable of policing the territory. They were always concerned that things would get out of control.

There was also the requirment that immigrants join the Catholic Church as a condition of their acceptance into the territory. Most Anglo immigrants were Protestant if they had religion at all. They were, of course accustommed to religious freedom in the U.S. and didn't see why it should be otherwise in "Tejas." These and other minor issues lead to the rebellion.

Furthermore, it wasn't just the defenders of the Alamo who rebelled. There were small contingents of rebels in other areas, to include Gonzales, not to mention the larger Texican force further to the East under Sam Houston himself.

Davy Crocket had proved his bravery many times before arriving at the Alamo. It is probably true that he didn't die in battle, though. It is more likely he was executed after the fall of the Alamo.

Jim Bowie was certainly an adventurer and could have been guilty of a lot of things. Much of his personal life is obscure, however. His notoriety only became fame after the fall of the Alamo.

I think all will agree that Sam Houston was a wierdo. :) But Sam Houston also proved to be a brave and capable leader. He swore off the booze and actually gained respectability (for a while, anyway). :)

No one knows for certain how many people died in the Alamo. Estimates range from around 180 to a high of near 250. These included a couple dozen Mexicans (who certainly held no slaves) who were led by the now-famous Juan Seguin (seh-geen), for whom a town east of San Antonio is named as well as the river that separates Texas from Louisiana.

Other Mexican rebels were killed in the Gonzales battle.

So yes, slavery existed in Texas, but it was not the sole cause of the rebellion. Nor were the majority of the rebels slave holders. And the real battle for Texas independence occurred on a plain which is now east of Houston called San Jacinto. It was there that Sam Houston's forces caught Santa Ana with his drawers down (literally) and ended the war.

Slavery increased dramatically in Texas AFTER the battle of the Alamo and ultimate independence, so that by the time of the Civil War, Texas was firmly on the side of the Confederacy.

That's my version, and I'm stickin' to it. ;)

[Eric Philson]

I'm sticking to your version too. That's about the same event and personal accounts that I've read about and trust the sources. It just seems that so many folks are trying to villify anyone who ever fought for or was patriotic toward the U.S. and gained notoriety for their contribution. Kinda makes me want to puke.

Oh yeah, and John Wayne didn't really die at the Alamo. Just before he was about to be finished off, the director cut for a powder break. An unsuspecting stunt double was made to fill in and inadvertantly died in his stead. :) I have it from a good source. James Arnez told me.

[John Bridge]

Well if you really want to get into Texas revisionism, did you know that without Texas the American Revolution might not have been won, that out of the goodness of their hearts the Spanish who then controlled the territory sent Texas beef into the Colonies to support the Continental Army? Have you read about what a staunch ally Spain was to the Americans as they fought off the British? Have you ever heard of such crap? :)

It all started over a strong desire of the Daughters of the Republic of Texas to connect their ancestors to the American Revolution. They got a not-well-known historian in San Antonio to write a book, and one thing led to another.

In actuality, Spain did sell beef to the Continental Army and did contribute insignificantly in other minor ways, to include the lending of small amounts of cash. But guess what. Spain was an enemy of England and was really pissed because of its defeat in the Seven Years War (the one we call the French and Indian War).

The governor of "New Spain" at that time was a fellow by name of Galvez. There is a hotel named after him in a town that is also named after him -- Galveston. Galvez did a reasonable job of running the place for the Spanish king, but he was not the savior of the Continentals as the Daughters would like to believe.

I'm tellin' ya, it's enough to make your head swim. If I know anything at all about American History it is about the period in question. I had not until then ever read or heard much about Spain's contribution. :)

Everybody knows it was actually the French who backed us up, but you don't hear much about Lafayette in the revised history. :)

[jjwq8]

John,
Pshaw and shame on you.
Tis an undisputable fact that the continental army couldn't possibly have functioned without constant ingestions of spanish paella and beef tacos. Discounting the paella, things haven't changed much in 200 some odd years have they?:D

[John Bridge]

Aptly said, Jeremy. ;)

[Bri]

And don't forget about us Canadians that sent you the mad cow. :rolleyes:

[Eric Philson]

Leaving out the french is the type of revisionism I can live with :yeah:

[jjwq8]

:DWe'll make a european of you yet, Eric:D

[John Bridge]

As it happens both the French and the Spanish had ulterior motives in aiding the fledgling U.S., both being perenial enemies of England and always resentful due to losses in wars that reach back into antiquity. :)

The difference between the two countries is that France (even if somewhat reluctantly) put its money, ships and military on the line, and it's clear to me that without that aid the Revolution would not have been won when it was (and maybe not at all). Spain's contributions, on the other hand, although valuable, were certainly not unique nor indispensable.

You also have to wonder how monarchs could tolerate the idea that a colonial rabble might have a shot at defeating a monarchy. ;) Of the two, however, Carlos of Spain had more to lose by ensuring a successful rebellion. I don't think for a minute that Spain was truly interested in the overthrow of colonial rule. Spain, afterall, had its own colonies to worry about in North America. Spain, then, was only interested in harrassing the Brits, not in defeating them on these shores.

[Eric Philson]

Jeremy,

Euro pion? me? never!! :)


John,

Didn't the french only get involved though because good ol' Ben Franklin tricked em into believing that the tide in the war had already turned decisively? And that it had turned in a manner that made it a safe bet for the french to stick a knife in and turn it without fear of recourse?

[John Bridge]

I don't think there was any out and out deception. I think there may have been a bit of exageration. :)

Louis pretty much knew what was going on, though. News travelled slow, but it was not uncommon for mail to reach the Continent in less than six weeks. It would have been very difficult to gloss over the reverses suffered by the Continentals.

[jjwq8]

The French have always stuck the knife and turned it without fear of recourse safe in the knowledge that an ally will bail them out!

[John Bridge]

And the Hundred Years War continues. ;)

[Eric Philson]

Even being a non-drinker, I just might be willing to drink to that. :twitch:

[jjwq8]

Being a non-drinker must suck.

Just knowing that how you feel when you wake up is the best you're going to feel all day! :D(Dean Martin)

[John Bridge]

Yeah, sobriety is the root of all wars.

Ben Franklin (attributed)

:D

[Eric Philson]

All I know is that the day I put down the Wild Turkey was the same day my knuckle chaffing began to heal. :rolleyes:

[flatfloor]

Work is the curse of the drinking class.- WC

[Eric Philson]

One of my favorite quotes from W.C. was from his death bed. Correct me if I get it wrong, but I think it goes like this...When asked what it was like to be dying, he replied "It's better than being in Cleveland" Or was it "I'd rather be in Cleveland"? Either way, it's a funny but deserving dis on Cleveland.

[flatfloor]

Actually he said "I'd rather be living in Philadelphia" wanted his epitaph to say that. He also said I spent a year in Philadelphia once....I think it was a Sunday. :)

[jjwq8]

That must have been the day that "Some A$$hole put Lime Juice in his Lime Juice" :D

[John Bridge]

Ain't this place wunnerful? The Alamo morphs into the death of W.C. Fields, who, everyone knows, did not serve at the Alamo.

;)

[jjwq8]

You mean the celluloid records are a lie?????????:eek:

[flatfloor]

Jeremy, many historians confuse WC's role in the Whikey Rebellion with the Alamo. We will discuss the Whiskey Rebellion in depth in September. :D