The fall of the Alamo, March 6, 1836.
- Thread starter Blackfork
- Start date
- Status
Sans Authoritas
member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2008
- Messages
- 1,126
MechAg94 wrote:
First, it's no secret that Polk wanted to be the next Conquistador. He was an "expansionist" and everyone knew where he was going with it. How dare the Mexican government turn down an offer to buy the territory? Ah, well, let's just stage an incident to start a war. San Jacinto hill looks like a good place to do that. Not the first, and certainly not the last time the U.S. government has staged an incident to start a war.
Second, most of the people who were settlers in Mexico had broken their oaths regarding the terms of settlement. The Mexican government was able to legally to kick them out. Just like you would be kicked out of your apartment if you kept cats when the lease you had signed specified "no pets."
Third: Dictators? You want to talk about dictators? How about this little fact: while he was in exile with his very young wife, the U.S. government offered millions to Santa Anna, if only he would allow himself to be installed as puppet dictator. Again, not the first time, and certainly not the last time the U.S. Government has tried to install a puppet dictator. Dictators are bad, everyone says, unless the dictator is hanging from the U.S. government's puppet strings. Then he becomes a good dictator. Only we can never call him that.
Heroic? Not a chance. The last stand at the Alamo was about as heroic as Custer's last stand: men where they should not have been, killing people who were defending their land. Dramatic and impressive, perhaps. Not heroic in the slightest.
As for "God is on our side," Mater Dei? Hitler might as well have pointed to the conquest of Poland in a month's time as evidence that "God is on our side." The rain falls on the good and the bad, the just and the unjust. "Manifest destiny" is the logical infarction that drove those power and land-hungry politicians. To those who pay lip service to God, yet can't be bothered with minor annoyances like the Ten Commandments, "Manifest destiny" translated to "Why, the land is out there: a sure sign that God must want it for us at any cost."
-Sans Authoritas
Mech,
First, it's no secret that Polk wanted to be the next Conquistador. He was an "expansionist" and everyone knew where he was going with it. How dare the Mexican government turn down an offer to buy the territory? Ah, well, let's just stage an incident to start a war. San Jacinto hill looks like a good place to do that. Not the first, and certainly not the last time the U.S. government has staged an incident to start a war.
Second, most of the people who were settlers in Mexico had broken their oaths regarding the terms of settlement. The Mexican government was able to legally to kick them out. Just like you would be kicked out of your apartment if you kept cats when the lease you had signed specified "no pets."
Third: Dictators? You want to talk about dictators? How about this little fact: while he was in exile with his very young wife, the U.S. government offered millions to Santa Anna, if only he would allow himself to be installed as puppet dictator. Again, not the first time, and certainly not the last time the U.S. Government has tried to install a puppet dictator. Dictators are bad, everyone says, unless the dictator is hanging from the U.S. government's puppet strings. Then he becomes a good dictator. Only we can never call him that.
Heroic? Not a chance. The last stand at the Alamo was about as heroic as Custer's last stand: men where they should not have been, killing people who were defending their land. Dramatic and impressive, perhaps. Not heroic in the slightest.
As for "God is on our side," Mater Dei? Hitler might as well have pointed to the conquest of Poland in a month's time as evidence that "God is on our side." The rain falls on the good and the bad, the just and the unjust. "Manifest destiny" is the logical infarction that drove those power and land-hungry politicians. To those who pay lip service to God, yet can't be bothered with minor annoyances like the Ten Commandments, "Manifest destiny" translated to "Why, the land is out there: a sure sign that God must want it for us at any cost."
-Sans Authoritas
Last edited:
ARKIESTEEL
Member
"ARKIESTEEL,
So...you don't think much of Travis, Bowie or Crocket. What's your point?
NASCAR"
No I dont think too much of Travis for sure he left a wife and kids to run off and play army. Any man that could do that is not hardly worth the label of hero no matter what he done after that.
Crocket was not a bad man by all accounts.
Bowie was rough tough guy that would be on the border of what we would today call a thug.
I dont really have a point other than the fact that the fall of the Alamo is not really US history and that the men who died there was not dieing for freedom, mom or apple pie. They died trying to stuff their pockets with land, money and titles.
There was a bunch of deeds that was the actions of heros done by men that had not set out to do more than bring fame, money and glory to thereselves
I dont have ill will for them but I dont think they are any greater than men who died fighting in WW2 on any un known battle field
So...you don't think much of Travis, Bowie or Crocket. What's your point?
NASCAR"
No I dont think too much of Travis for sure he left a wife and kids to run off and play army. Any man that could do that is not hardly worth the label of hero no matter what he done after that.
Crocket was not a bad man by all accounts.
Bowie was rough tough guy that would be on the border of what we would today call a thug.
I dont really have a point other than the fact that the fall of the Alamo is not really US history and that the men who died there was not dieing for freedom, mom or apple pie. They died trying to stuff their pockets with land, money and titles.
There was a bunch of deeds that was the actions of heros done by men that had not set out to do more than bring fame, money and glory to thereselves
I dont have ill will for them but I dont think they are any greater than men who died fighting in WW2 on any un known battle field
NASCAR_MAN
member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2007
- Messages
- 179
I dont really have a point other than the fact that the fall of the Alamo is not really US history and that the men who died there was not dieing for freedom, mom or apple pie. They died trying to stuff their pockets with land, money and titles.
-------------------------------
So...you think they just died for the wealth, huh? Seriously, has postmodernism really infected us that bad? (postmodernism - the marxist belief that all conflict is economic)
Has it ever occured to you that men may fight on principal - either right, or wrong? For example...do you find it hard to believe that a Saudi Billionaire would choose to live in a filthy cave while fighting the mightiest nation on earth - knowing his only reward in his lifetime will be certain death?
No wonder we are losing the "War on Terror" - we can't even imagine that anything but cash could inspire them.
-------------------------------
So...you think they just died for the wealth, huh? Seriously, has postmodernism really infected us that bad? (postmodernism - the marxist belief that all conflict is economic)
Has it ever occured to you that men may fight on principal - either right, or wrong? For example...do you find it hard to believe that a Saudi Billionaire would choose to live in a filthy cave while fighting the mightiest nation on earth - knowing his only reward in his lifetime will be certain death?
No wonder we are losing the "War on Terror" - we can't even imagine that anything but cash could inspire them.
Sans Authoritas
member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2008
- Messages
- 1,126
Nascar Man wrote:
Nascar, there's almost always a disconnect between why a government starts a war, and what the people think they're actually fighting to accomplish. The two ends are not always contradictory, but again, seldom are they ever synonymous.
Lincoln started his war against the South not to free the slaves, but to make sure his tariffs were paid, and that the South lost twice over economically as a result, while the North prospered twice over.
Many of the Northerners wanted to fight for stupid reasons, such as to force a "union" at gunpoint. Or to "teach those Rebels a lesson." Or because they were drafted at bayonetpoint, or because there were no jobs for an Irish immigrant. Read the soldiers' letters from the time. You'll see what they were fighting for.
Southerners fought to keep Yankees off their land. 95% of Southerners didn't own slaves. It wasn't all about the economics for them, it was the principle of other men shoving their policies down their throats. That doesn't sit well with human beings.
Another reason: when asked by his Northern captor why he was fighting, a captured black Southern soldier simply said, "Because you're here."
In almost every war, soldiers will admit that they're just fighting for their buddies, and to stay alive.
A government that starts a war has to pump its people up. The Lusitania served that purpose in WWI, even though it was a legitimate military target because the ship was carrying munitions, as many other cruise liners were. There were riots in the streets of Boston after a poster of a beautiful woman with a baby in her arms, sinking to the bottom of the sea, was put up. People wanted revenge, based on emotion, not necessarily because of alliances their respective governments cooked up.
-Sans Authoritas
Nascar, there's almost always a disconnect between why a government starts a war, and what the people think they're actually fighting to accomplish. The two ends are not always contradictory, but again, seldom are they ever synonymous.
Lincoln started his war against the South not to free the slaves, but to make sure his tariffs were paid, and that the South lost twice over economically as a result, while the North prospered twice over.
Many of the Northerners wanted to fight for stupid reasons, such as to force a "union" at gunpoint. Or to "teach those Rebels a lesson." Or because they were drafted at bayonetpoint, or because there were no jobs for an Irish immigrant. Read the soldiers' letters from the time. You'll see what they were fighting for.
Southerners fought to keep Yankees off their land. 95% of Southerners didn't own slaves. It wasn't all about the economics for them, it was the principle of other men shoving their policies down their throats. That doesn't sit well with human beings.
Another reason: when asked by his Northern captor why he was fighting, a captured black Southern soldier simply said, "Because you're here."
In almost every war, soldiers will admit that they're just fighting for their buddies, and to stay alive.
A government that starts a war has to pump its people up. The Lusitania served that purpose in WWI, even though it was a legitimate military target because the ship was carrying munitions, as many other cruise liners were. There were riots in the streets of Boston after a poster of a beautiful woman with a baby in her arms, sinking to the bottom of the sea, was put up. People wanted revenge, based on emotion, not necessarily because of alliances their respective governments cooked up.
-Sans Authoritas
ARKIESTEEL
Member
So we are not winning the war on terror cause I think some of the men that died at the Alamo wasnt fighting for freedom? That seems like a classic case of taking the high road to end a debate. I dont think all wars or battles are about money but the facts and truths are pretty clear on this one. Travis and Bowie was trying to get paid, but got in a spot that they couldnt get out of.
John Wayne and all of hollywood can paint this however they want. Travis and Bowie didnt die for the little dirt farmers in Texas,
The Alamo and the whole war for Texas and the war on terror have nothing to do with one another. The war in Texas was about money and land and nothing else facts are facts.
Please if you choose to retort stay on this subject.
John Wayne and all of hollywood can paint this however they want. Travis and Bowie didnt die for the little dirt farmers in Texas,
The Alamo and the whole war for Texas and the war on terror have nothing to do with one another. The war in Texas was about money and land and nothing else facts are facts.
Please if you choose to retort stay on this subject.
anygunanywhere
Member
Actually the topic of this post was to remember the fall of the Alamo and the brave men who died for freedom.
Take the trashing of Texas history to your own thread. We Texicans don't think much of Arkansas history either, what little of it there is.
Anygunanywhere
Take the trashing of Texas history to your own thread. We Texicans don't think much of Arkansas history either, what little of it there is.
Anygunanywhere
geophysicishooter
Member
I'm glad I've been on hiatus thus far during this "debate".
Arkie's and Okie's commenting on Texas History is a GOOD way to get a border skirmish started and p!ss of alot of Texans. Neither of which is very 'High Road'.
Regardless of what happened afterwards (after all, Travis didn't have a crystal ball like you do, Sans) Santa Anna was trashing the constitution of his country, setting up a dictatorship through the church and centralising the government. Shall I post the Texas Declaration of Independence? or shall I save you the effort of reading it? The people of Texas wanted to rally the people of Mexico to oust a dictator but the people of Mexico didn't repsond.. leaving the Texans alone and isolated and under the thumb of a gun grabbing dictator..
what would you do?
Arkie's and Okie's commenting on Texas History is a GOOD way to get a border skirmish started and p!ss of alot of Texans. Neither of which is very 'High Road'.
Regardless of what happened afterwards (after all, Travis didn't have a crystal ball like you do, Sans) Santa Anna was trashing the constitution of his country, setting up a dictatorship through the church and centralising the government. Shall I post the Texas Declaration of Independence? or shall I save you the effort of reading it? The people of Texas wanted to rally the people of Mexico to oust a dictator but the people of Mexico didn't repsond.. leaving the Texans alone and isolated and under the thumb of a gun grabbing dictator..
what would you do?
Last edited:
Selfdfenz
Member
If they weren't then none of the people that fell during the RW lost their lives for freedom either. I guess the only army you would be happy with would be populated by saints?
Are you saying all divorced people are bad....evil? Just wondering?
Best,
S-
Sans Authoritas
member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2008
- Messages
- 1,126
Geophysicist wrote:
Geophysicist,
I wouldn't have broken my settlement agreement.
-Sans Authoritas
Geophysicist,
I wouldn't have broken my settlement agreement.
-Sans Authoritas
NASCAR_MAN
member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2007
- Messages
- 179
Sans Authoritas,
Your post is a howler. I mean, you tell us that the South was fighting on Pricipal, while the North was fighting out of pure greed.
Now...imagine this type of nihilist system "writ large" and ask yourself, "What chance of defeating evil and ensuring justice could such a people hope?"
NASCAR
Your post is a howler. I mean, you tell us that the South was fighting on Pricipal, while the North was fighting out of pure greed.
Now...imagine this type of nihilist system "writ large" and ask yourself, "What chance of defeating evil and ensuring justice could such a people hope?"
NASCAR
Sans Authoritas
member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2008
- Messages
- 1,126
Nascar wrote:
I'm glad you found it amusing. Now read it again, I said no such thing.
-Sans Authoritas
I'm glad you found it amusing. Now read it again, I said no such thing.
-Sans Authoritas
Absolutely these men had flaws. If you watch the movie "The Alamo" (2004) they address these issues rather than sweep them. One guy calls Travis out and says "you ran out on your wife!" At one point, Bowie tells his slave "no you can't be free, if I get killed, then you're free." We showed this film in class and some of the kids caught up on this irony- that he was fighting for "freedom" but had slaves.
You can take the same sort of cynical view of some of the founding fathers. Thomas Jefferson was having sex with his teenage black slave (Sally Hemings) yet few people judge him on this. Ben Franklin, who is honored on our $100 bill among other things, was a frequent patron of prostitutes.
Lincoln would have just as surely continued slavery to keep the union together.
So yes you can find things wrong with any figure from history. Overall Travis, Bowie, and Crocket did something remarkable- they sacrificed their lives to so Texas could be free from Mexican tyranny. How many of us would do the same? How many men (today or then) prefer to grow old and die pissing and senile in a bed at age 90 rather than die for a cause or idea?
geophysicishooter
Member
Shall I post the Declaration?? There was a litany of human rights violations perpetrated on the People of the nation of Mexico, of which Texas was a state.
Sans Authoritas
member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2008
- Messages
- 1,126
Geo, I'm going to have to research the events of the Alamo a bit more before I respond. What came afterward, of course, was clearly wrong. But I'm going to hold off on saying any more on this topic until I've read more, because I'm all about casting off unjust aggressors or otherwise delegitimizing them.
-Sans Authoritas
-Sans Authoritas
geophysicishooter
Member
I won't ruin the story for you if you want to read the whole thing but it starts about a year before the Alamo (actually it started much earlier than that but I digress). When you get to the part about Gonzales, your eyes will turn red and then your heart will swell with pride.
The struggle for independence didn't start out as such. The Texans had a list of greivances which they wanted their government (i.e. the Mexican government) to address. That gov failed to address or correct those greivances and subjected it's citizens to further humiliation and disarmament and failed to allow the citizens of Texas proper representation in Mex City. That's what got it started..
They did what free men are expected to do. They stood up to tyrrany and fought. I only hope that spirit still lives in enough of us today..
The struggle for independence didn't start out as such. The Texans had a list of greivances which they wanted their government (i.e. the Mexican government) to address. That gov failed to address or correct those greivances and subjected it's citizens to further humiliation and disarmament and failed to allow the citizens of Texas proper representation in Mex City. That's what got it started..
They did what free men are expected to do. They stood up to tyrrany and fought. I only hope that spirit still lives in enough of us today..
ARKIESTEEL
Member
I was not trying to upset the state of Texas, find your heros where you will. The war for Texas was not the war Travis and Bowie was fighting. That was my only point and I have nothing more to add or take away from this.
I never said that all divorce is bad I said Travis left his wife and kids to run off to Texas. I dont have a problem as much with him leaving his wife but a man is not a man who leaves his childern for is own well being.
Good bless all you good ol boys from Texas I meant no harm to you.
Even if the Hawgs are going to put it to the Horns this year Sept 13 in Austin
I never said that all divorce is bad I said Travis left his wife and kids to run off to Texas. I dont have a problem as much with him leaving his wife but a man is not a man who leaves his childern for is own well being.
Good bless all you good ol boys from Texas I meant no harm to you.
Even if the Hawgs are going to put it to the Horns this year Sept 13 in Austin
AirForceShooter
Member
First time I saw the Alamo was 1964. The Air Force figured we needed a time out from basic...
The very first thing that struck me was just how small it is.
Those guys held off how many Mexicans from this tiny place????
You just have to stop.
AFS
The very first thing that struck me was just how small it is.
Those guys held off how many Mexicans from this tiny place????
You just have to stop.
AFS
There's an excellent book by William Davis called "Three Road to the Alamo" I think. I read it about five or six years ago. I took away that Crockett was a self-promoter (didn't like to be called Davy) none the less had strong leadership skills; Travis deserted his family, saw himself as a military leader, personnally brave and Bowie swindled many people in Louisiana with fake land grant deeds but the fiercest and bravest of the three, engaged in close combat knife duels (I recall one on a sandbar in Louisiana) and a skillful Indian fighter. They all came to Texas for a re-do. And to the best of my knowledge, Crockett was in the House not the Senate, although Houston may have been in the Senate. More trivia, Houston assaulted an unflattering newspaperman in DC and was defended by Francis Scott Key.
Feud
Member
I'm not saying that Santa Anna wasn't a jerk, or saying the men at the Alamo were immoral. I am saying that the Texas Revolution likely wouldn't have happened had it not been for the massive wave of illegal immigration from the U.S. into Mexico. By the time the Revolution started most anglo's in Texas had either came illegally, or long since broken the residency conditions, thus voiding their legal status.
You can call this "revisionist" history if you want, but if revisionism means knowing the facts rather then believing in fairy tales, then give me revisionism any day.
You can call this "revisionist" history if you want, but if revisionism means knowing the facts rather then believing in fairy tales, then give me revisionism any day.
News Shooter
Member
I don't understand why everything today has to be painted with some whining "I'm a victim" brush.
The Central Government in Mexico City in the early 1800's actually paid immigrants to come and settle the State of Tejas by giving them extensive land grants.
This was done in order to shore up their claim on the land in future disputes with the US and to protect the citizens from other bad things like Comanches and the Fench.
By the 1830's the settlement plan had backfired and Americans were the majority in Tejas and wanted representation in Mexico City. Santa Ana was afraid a revolt in Tejas would spread to other states and sent his army north to crush the insurgents.
To say it was some kind of a mass invasion is specious. It happened over time and of course it was about money and opportunity. It always has been and always will be.
The men who fought and died in the Alamo could have left but chose not to knowing full well their fate, but holding to the belief they would be reinforced
The Central Government in Mexico City in the early 1800's actually paid immigrants to come and settle the State of Tejas by giving them extensive land grants.
This was done in order to shore up their claim on the land in future disputes with the US and to protect the citizens from other bad things like Comanches and the Fench.
By the 1830's the settlement plan had backfired and Americans were the majority in Tejas and wanted representation in Mexico City. Santa Ana was afraid a revolt in Tejas would spread to other states and sent his army north to crush the insurgents.
To say it was some kind of a mass invasion is specious. It happened over time and of course it was about money and opportunity. It always has been and always will be.
The men who fought and died in the Alamo could have left but chose not to knowing full well their fate, but holding to the belief they would be reinforced
Last edited:
svtruth
Member
One of the flash points
was the Mexicans' attembt to take the Texians cannon.
They had a flag with a cannon on it and the words
"Come and take it".
Sound familiar?
was the Mexicans' attembt to take the Texians cannon.
They had a flag with a cannon on it and the words
"Come and take it".
Sound familiar?
CZ-100
Member
I will be heading out to San Ant. in a couple of weeks and will to visit the Alamo when there.
Will only be there for 3 day, any of you Texans want to tell me what else their is to see there.
Will only be there for 3 day, any of you Texans want to tell me what else their is to see there.
geophysicishooter
Member
^^^ not touching that one..
I'm sure there is someone from S.A. who can tell you what else there is to see there. It depends on what you want to do, who you have in your party and what your interests are. There is plenty to do. Sea World and six flags have parks in san antonio. Natural Bridge Caverns is close. It may be a little early (read: cold) for a river trip but people kayak and canoe the Guadalupe, the Comal, the Frio and a few others.. have fun and spend a lot of money in Texas!!
I'm sure there is someone from S.A. who can tell you what else there is to see there. It depends on what you want to do, who you have in your party and what your interests are. There is plenty to do. Sea World and six flags have parks in san antonio. Natural Bridge Caverns is close. It may be a little early (read: cold) for a river trip but people kayak and canoe the Guadalupe, the Comal, the Frio and a few others.. have fun and spend a lot of money in Texas!!
- Status