Today marks the 175th anniversary of the fall of the Alamo. There has been a great deal of 'historical revision' in recent years about that most famous event in Texas history. Pretty soon, at the rate things are going, it will be the Texans who had the Mexicans outnumbered. However, the basic facts cannot be changed. Both sides fought with amazing heroism and both had legitimate reasons for their position. With the rise of the politically correct tyranny, even in Texas some things have gotten out of hand. Mexican ethnic pressure groups once forced a baseball team to change their name from "1836" (an odd name for a team anyway) because they deemed the year 1836 "racist" against Mexicans. No, I'm not joking -it is that silly. As for myself, and I would think any honest observer, I can see that both sides had some right on their side and likewise both had their black marks. However, when I look at how I live here and now and then I look at the crime, poverty and constant drug violence in Mexico just a few miles away, I thank God that things worked out the way they did. May the defenders R.I.P.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Storming the Alamo
Today marks the 175th anniversary of the fall of the Alamo. There has been a great deal of 'historical revision' in recent years about that most famous event in Texas history. Pretty soon, at the rate things are going, it will be the Texans who had the Mexicans outnumbered. However, the basic facts cannot be changed. Both sides fought with amazing heroism and both had legitimate reasons for their position. With the rise of the politically correct tyranny, even in Texas some things have gotten out of hand. Mexican ethnic pressure groups once forced a baseball team to change their name from "1836" (an odd name for a team anyway) because they deemed the year 1836 "racist" against Mexicans. No, I'm not joking -it is that silly. As for myself, and I would think any honest observer, I can see that both sides had some right on their side and likewise both had their black marks. However, when I look at how I live here and now and then I look at the crime, poverty and constant drug violence in Mexico just a few miles away, I thank God that things worked out the way they did. May the defenders R.I.P.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Your right, 1836 is an odd, even bad, name for a sports team. Still, to consider a Year Racist, or it racist to be glad your Country won independence (While still not thinking July 4th is bad) is a bizarre PC claim that makes no sense. But what do you expect?
ReplyDeleteWe live in an age when we think that we can rewrite Biology because someone wants to, and an era when all is permissible and tolerance and equality are what we strive for, but Traditional Values are seen as horrible, And thus not really tolerated. No one notices the Hypocrisy.
May they Rest in peace indeed, those stalwart Souls who gave there all for their Cause.
Hypocrisy is the right word for it and I am constantly trying to point this out to people. Why did the U.S. think secession from the British Empire was legitimate but not the secession of the southern states from the Union? Likewise, if the people of Mexico had a right to declare independence from the Spanish Empire why did the people of Texas not have a right to declare independence from Mexico? That 'self-determination' thing only seems to be acceptable at certain times.
ReplyDeleteWhich one was Bowie? The guy that died on the bed?
ReplyDeleteIn some ways, the fight at the Alamo (and the whole war for Texas independence generally) was a part of the Federalist-Centralist dispute in Mexico after winning independence from Spain. Generally, the then-liberal Federalists visualized a confederation of fairly autonomous states, very much like the then-United States. The Centralists were more authoritarian-top-down control from Mexico City. When Lopez de Santa Anna (who had at first seemed to be a Federalist)took absolute control and abrogated the 1824 Mexican constitution, other Mexican states besides Texas rebelled, only to be put down with considerable brutality. (Notably Zacatecas - and the defenders of the Alamo knew this very well.) Within Texas, it wasn't just Anglo settlers who took up against the Centralists - there were Federalists among the Tejanos like Juan Seguin and Lorenzo de Zavala, and the de Leons of Victoria. I went to some of the reenactor events on Alamo Plaza over the weekend - very impressive.
ReplyDeleteYes, Bowie was bed-ridden at the time of the attack and for most of the 13-day siege.
ReplyDeleteAlso true about the centralistas and federalistas. Not many know that Santa Anna, who portrayed himself as a federalist as you say, was originally supported by the Texans. Of course, as he often did, Santa Anna turned his coat once he was in power. He also dealt with Zacatecas -quite fiercely and another area that rebelled, somewhat later, was the Yucatan and President Lamar hired out the Republic of Texas Navy to help the fledgling Republic of Yucatan who were, of course, ultimately unsuccessful.
There were, as you say, rebels and loyalists from each community in the war. There were a number of ethnic Mexicans who fought alongside the Texans and there were also quite a few Europeans in both armies. There were quite a few Germans, Englishman, Irishmen etc in the Alamo, one Scotsman, one Dane and so on. In Santa Anna's army there was a German in charge of the artillery in Urrea's column, Santa Anna had an Italian deputy commander and a French quartermaster general.
I'm glad you were able to take in a reenactment. A few years ago (actually it's now been more than just a 'few' years) you might have seen me there. One year my old dad and I both went along, I was in the Texas army and he was in the Mexican army. We never had at each other though, Dad was a color-bearer and as I recall I was on the artillery that time.
I agree with you MM, the self-determination is relative, for example is acceptable that the ancient Austro-Hungarian empire fall because the wishes of a few czech, hungarians, romanians, etc?, or what about spliting belgium in flanders and wallon and destroying an monarchy.
ReplyDeleteHi from argentina.
The key difference for me is, again, the hypocrisy factor. In the case of Mexico the Anglo colonies were invited in by the government that wanted Texas to be settled and it was done under the 1824 Constitution only to have Santa Anna change the rules on them. Of course the Texans were largely not keeping all of their promises either, hence, as I said, there were points on both sides. For the U.S. it makes no sense that states which voluntarily joined the Union are not allowed to voluntarily leave that Union. And, in the same vein, the U.S. supported Texas leaving Mexico but not, a few years later, trying to leave the Union.
ReplyDeleteAustria-Hungary did not come suddenly into existence. It evolved naturally over a long period of time, mostly through dynastic alliances i.e. marriage. In the case of Belgium, that is a little different but one point everyone ignores (or is ignorant of) is that Belgium is NOT an "invented" state. Flanders and Walonia had been together for a very, very long time before 1830, they just had not been an independent kingdom. Even then, they did not come into being as a separate Flanders and Walonia deciding to unite, able to then divide again whenever they choose. Belgium began as a united country and only became federal over a hundred years later.
Well, MM, I am going to post a picture essay tomorrow on my Open Salon blog - maybe you'll recognize some of the reenactors! I am sure you had a blast! Metaphorically speaking, of course.
ReplyDeleteIt will be interesting to see if any of the old crowd are still at it. I did enjoy it though I have to say my favorite experience back then was being 'massacred' at Goliad -no urban jungle and things more like they were at the time, plus the cavalry had room to run. I was 'finished off' by a Mexican lancer -actually a very fun lady school teacher.
ReplyDeleteConcerning the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and the Czechs especially, an interesting anecdote is that while I was living in the Czech Republic, there was a woman in my neighborhood who had been born in the very early 1900s, and hence lived through the Austro-Hungarian collapse, the independent Czechoslovakia, Nazi-dominated Czechoslovakia, Soviet-dominated Czechoslovakia, independent Czechoslovakia, and modern Czech Republic. Ano0ther neighbor is a monarchist as well. Just an interesting thought.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure how much of this Texas/Mexico independance fight was legitimate and how much of it was simple American expansionism. I would like to read and reflect upon this more.
ReplyDeleteIt is true that some of the Texas "bigwigs" involved(the ones who eventually had towns named after them)were mere land-grabbers working hand-in-glove with Washington and that may have soured Mexico's at first benign view of the matter. And we cannot discount the acrid stench of Masonry which was heavily involved on the American side of the business. These facts make the issue a little more complex than either John Wayne or our fifth-grade US history books would have it. [Which is not meant to denigrate Mr Wayne's fine film, by the way.]
If there are any cool and dispassionate historical discussions of the Alamo incident and the politics surrounding it I would be quite pleased to learn about them. Any recommendations would be greatly appreciated.
Some were and some were not -and most who were were newcomers. Austin, for example, actually rallied his colonists to fight for Mexico against a filibuster invasion. He was against the war until he went to Mexico City to present their complaints and he was thrown in jail and nearly died. After that he determined there was no other option but to fight. Houston was definitely for US expansion and never really made much of a secret about it but others, like President Lamar, was absolutely not.
ReplyDeleteAs for the Masons, they are a non-issue on this one as they dominated the leadership on both sides. Houston was a Mason, so was Santa Anna. If you want to blame American Masons you need to go back to 1820's Mexico and the downfall of Iturbide.