Why attack the Alamo?

[The Yankee]

The Alamo certainly was a nice symbol, I believe. And if you can get some of the rebel leadership in there such as Travis, Bowie, and Crockett, why not?

I still have to research what, if any, ties I have to William B. Travis. My father said he was told by his family....but since they moved back to Texas, we never talk...which just makes it that much harder.

 

[Martacus]

Originally posted by MrPresident

I understand what you're saying. After all I am from a nation that celebrates the spectactular running away that was Dunkirk.

At least they had the good sense to run from a crushing and ignominious defeat so they could return and fight better later on. Can't say that for the Alamo boys.

By the way, shouldn't this go in the history forum?

 

[jpowers]

Originally posted by Double Barrel


I do think it is rather simplistic to blame the Texas independence movement on slavery (as in most events, there are many different perspectives and motives). But, hey, who am I to say, it is a sign of modern times to revise history to suit our current trend towards political correctness.

Oh, please. Texans wouldn't have cared a fig for independence if they're profit margins hadn't been threatened by abolition. They had settlers' regret when they realized the US which they left was still allowing slavery.

 

[Double Barrel]

@ jpowers: but, if the figure cited - 1 out of 5 Texans owned slaves - do you honestly believe that 80% of folks fighting for independence were actually fighting for slavery? (and I do not even believe that 20% of Texans owned slaves, so that is a biased figure to begin with)

Anyway, it is too simple and revisionist for me to believe (ie. black and white). I prefer to comprehend history with objectivity in mind (shades of gray), and with an understanding that nothing is as cut and dry as modern historical revisionists want us to swallow.

But, if the black and white Disney version of history makes it easier for people to comprehend, then be my guest and digest your newest version of truth until you're full of it!

 

[Double Barrel]

The Texas Declaration of Independence, like the United States Declaration of Independence, contains a statement on the nature of government, a list of grievances, and a final declaration of independence. The separation from Mexico was justified by a brief philosophical argument and by a list of grievances submitted to an impartial world.

The declaration charged that the government of Mexico had ceased to protect the lives, liberty, and property of the people; that it had been changed from a restricted federal republic to a consolidated, central, military despotism;

that the people of Texas had remonstrated against the misdeeds of the government only to have their agents thrown into dungeons and armies sent forth to enforce the decrees of the new government at the point of the bayonet;

that the welfare of Texas had been sacrificed to that of Coahuila;

that the government had failed to provide a system of public education, trial by jury, freedom of religion, and other essentials of good government;

and that the Indians had been incited to massacre the settlers.

According to the declaration, the Mexican government had invaded Texas to lay waste territory and had a large mercenary army advancing to carry on a war of extermination.

The final grievance listed in justification of revolution charged that the Mexican government had been "the contemptible sport and victim of successive military revolutions and hath continually exhibited every characteristic of a weak, corrupt, and tyrannical government."


hmmmm....seems a liiiiitle deeper than the simpleton belief that the Texas revolution was solely about slavery.