The Alamo

Ken, I have two marriage counseling appointments Tuesday PM. Record it for me please! (My wife can't--too technical).

 

Are they going to have a fair balanced program or the typical good guys (Texans) vs bad guys (Mexicans) stereotypes we see in all those old westerns?

 

Well... we can hope since it's the History Channel. If it were PBS, they'd show the Texans as pure evil and Santa Anna as a saint; you know how PBS likes to counter all stereotypes with an equal and opposite reaction.

 

Has anyone seen teh IMAX of it?? I saw it in San Antonio a few years ago. I enjoyed it. But I don't know that much about the Alamo so I don't know if it was good or bad ... historically speaking.

 

If you want the true story of the Alamo (the word means "cottonwood" in Spanish) take a look at this link. http://www.tuppenceworth.ie/Politics/Alamo.html

The fight at the Alamo was not about heroism, or even self-determination. It was about Mexico becoming more and more anti-slavery, and the Texans wanting to preserve their profitable cotton growing industry!

 

I knew that slavery was on of the issues but I didn't want to mention it because this thread would quickly degrade into another slavery debate.

 

I have read other articles by the author and he seems quite aware of the history of Misión San Antonio de Valero (the real name for the Alamo). It was the Spanish Army who nick-named the Mission after their home town of Alamo de Parras, Coahuila. The Alamo served as a home to missionaries and Indians as well s General Martín Perfecto de Cós and his troops. The General surrendered the Alamo in 1835 and the Mexican troops were replaced by Ben Milam and a group of Texan and Tejano volunteers. General Antonio López de Santa Anna and his army nearly re-conquered the Mission, but Colonel William B. Travis sent couriers to towns in Texas and gathered an additional 32 volunteers from Gonzales, bringing the total number of the occupation forces to nearly two hundred.

To suggest the author is ignorant of history because he referred to the Mission as a "church" seems like nit-picking to me. But then, there is no such thing as "unbiased history." All history is written from a singular viewpoint.

 

I suppose the reason would be historical accuracy. It would be nice to hide our head in the sand and deny that our country has not always been perfect and righteous, but that would preclude our ever growing and becoming a better nation, wouldn't it?

Slavery was the basis for cotton production in Texas in the early 19th century. Mexico was in the process of outlawing slavery so Texas tried to succeed from Mexico. The same thing happened on a much larger scale, but for different reasons, 16 years later, when the southern states succeeded from the United States over the issue of States Rights, something Mexican law did not provide for.

In my opinion slavery would have been short lived regardless of whether or not we fought the Civil War. It was proving to be too cumbersome to support. The issue of the Civil War was States Rights as guaranteed by the Constitution and as run rough shod over by President Lincoln and the Congress as they moved toward a strong central federal government.

 

I don't have a dog in this fight. My family had not yet arrived on the hallowed shores of America. In fact, they wouldn't arrive for over 100 years.