Forget the Alamo

[ataraxia]

These people are so lost walking in the trees they can't see the forest. The Alamo played an integral roll in Texas gaining its independence and eventually becoming a state. Full stop. That's the place it's holding in history. Not any of the minutia of details that these authors are whining about.

It’s OK for history books to present a little more detail than just “here is the forest”.

 

[Lucky 1]

Are you not aware of the role slavery played?

Slavery played no significant part in the start of the Texas war for independence.

The Mexican constitution gave Mexican states considerable rights to freedoms and how they could govern themselves and at that time Texas was bundled together with the Mexican state of Coahuila and known as Coahuila y Tejas.

When Santa Anna came to power he fancied himself a dictator actually referring to himself in private as the "Napoleon of the west". His first effort at consolidating power was to make null the Mexican constitution in 1824 and centralize the government and then calling for huge trade tariffs and tax's on the states including Coahuila y Tejas.

In 1832 Mexican forces entered Texas moving north attempting to collect tax's and tariffs from Texas residences leading to skirmishes between the Mexican army and locals first at Anahuac but spreading to other areas as well.

The entire Texas battle for independence revolved around Santa Anna's cancelling of the Mexican constitution and Texians perceiving the tax, tariffs and lose of person freedoms as unjust.

While it is true that Mexico had banned slavery....Unlike the B.S you will find on Wikipedia about it....Slavery was never a big thing in Texas nor was it a huge economic thing like it was in the American south.

The whole thing started over tax's, tyranny and lose of freedoms...... Basically Texians had no use for a tyrant dictator who likes little girls like Santa Anna........Kinda like how we have no use for our current Tyrant dictator Senile Joe Biden who also likes little girls.

The book posted by the OP is mostly revisionist bullshit!

 

[Rexedgar]

Slavery played no significant part in the start of the Texas war for independence.

The Mexican constitution gave Mexican states considerable rights to freedoms and how they could govern themselves and at that time Texas was bundled together with the Mexican state of Coahuila and known as Coahuila y Tejas.

When Santa Anna came to power he fancied himself a dictator actually referring to himself in private as the "Napoleon of the west". His first effort at consolidating power was to make null the Mexican constitution in 1824 and centralize the government and then calling for huge trade tariffs and tax's on the states including Coahuila y Tejas.

In 1832 Mexican forces entered Texas moving north attempting to collect tax's and tariffs from Texas residences leading to skirmishes between the Mexican army and locals first at Anahuac but spreading to other areas as well.

The entire Texas battle for independence revolved around Santa Anna's cancelling of the Mexican constitution and Texians perceiving the tax, tariffs and lose of person freedoms as unjust.

While it is true that Mexico had banned slavery....Unlike the B.S you will find on Wikipedia about it....Slavery was never a big thing in Texas nor was it a huge economic thing like it was in the American south.

The whole thing started over tax's, tyranny and lose of freedoms...... Basically Texians had no use for a tyrant dictator who likes little girls like Santa Anna........Kinda like how we have no use for our current Tyrant dictator Senile Joe Biden who also likes little girls.

The book posted by the OP is mostly revisionist bullshit!

Texas cotton didn’t pick itself….

 

[Tigerace117]

Slavery played no significant part in the start of the Texas war for independence.

The Mexican constitution gave Mexican states considerable rights to freedoms and how they could govern themselves and at that time Texas was bundled together with the Mexican state of Coahuila and known as Coahuila y Tejas.

When Santa Anna came to power he fancied himself a dictator actually referring to himself in private as the "Napoleon of the west". His first effort at consolidating power was to make null the Mexican constitution in 1824 and centralize the government and then calling for huge trade tariffs and tax's on the states including Coahuila y Tejas.

In 1832 Mexican forces entered Texas moving north attempting to collect tax's and tariffs from Texas residences leading to skirmishes between the Mexican army and locals first at Anahuac but spreading to other areas as well.

The entire Texas battle for independence revolved around Santa Anna's cancelling of the Mexican constitution and Texians perceiving the tax, tariffs and lose of person freedoms as unjust.

While it is true that Mexico had banned slavery....Unlike the B.S you will find on Wikipedia about it....Slavery was never a big thing in Texas nor was it a huge economic thing like it was in the American south.

The whole thing started over tax's, tyranny and lose of freedoms...... Basically Texians had no use for a tyrant dictator who likes little girls like Santa Anna........Kinda like how we have no use for our current Tyrant dictator Senile Joe Biden who also likes little girls.

The book posted by the OP is mostly revisionist bullshit!

Ah, so since Biden is a “dictator”, I assume this will be your last post since you’ll promptly be executed for it.....right?

After all, he is a dictator.....right?



Slavery was such a big thing in Texas it literally betrayed the United States to try and protect it.

 

[Fishking]

It’s OK for history books to present a little more detail than just “here is the forest”.

To what gain? The Alamo is literally only a thing because of the battle, and nothing else. If there was no battle then no one would care about it and it would likely not even exist. If people want to teach about the overall geo-political picture from the era, then I can see making some of the points made in the OP, but it has nothing to do with the Alamo.

 

[iguanaman]

The history channel has a series called 'the men who built america'. Interesting series because it didn't take out all the warts. One thing that became clear to me. All of them were real pricks. They would destroy people's lives without blinking an eye for more profit or just for spite.

Welcome to unbridled capitalism. That is what that series is about. FDR put a halter on it but wild horses long to be free.

 

[iguanaman]

To what gain? The Alamo is literally only a thing because of the battle, and nothing else. If there was no battle then no one would care about it and it would likely not even exist. If people want to teach about the overall geo-political picture from the era, then I can see making some of the points made in the OP, but it has nothing to do with the Alamo.

It really wasn't much of a battle either that's the point.

 

[ataraxia]

To what gain? The Alamo is literally only a thing because of the battle, and nothing else. If there was no battle then no one would care about it and it would likely not even exist. If people want to teach about the overall geo-political picture from the era, then I can see making some of the points made in the OP, but it has nothing to do with the Alamo.

When they say "remember the Alamo", it is referring to the larger geo-political picture.

 

[Fishking]

It really wasn't much of a battle either that's the point.

It was important in who was there. We had very influential people present, including an US Congressman. Not all battles are in themselves monumental, if you strip it away. Hell, the Battle of Thermopylae is also not significant, and is also mythologized, yet over 2000 years later it holds the minds of so many.

 

[Fishking]

When they say "remember the Alamo", it is referring to the larger geo-political picture.

Nope...it's referring to the individuals who stayed and fought there, knowing it was certain death, as they were given the chance to surrender and those who didn't would not be given any quarter.

 

[Rexedgar]

Nope...it's referring to the individuals who stayed and fought there, knowing it was certain death, as they were given the chance to surrender and those who didn't would not be given any quarter.

I agree that the courage of the participants should be lauded. At the same time saying that the battle had nothing to do with the greater struggle is akin to picking the white outta chicken shit, imo.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Texas cotton didn’t pick itself….

The cotton industry was never giant in Texas. Most of Texas’s agricultural sector was in beef and they used hired workers for that. Slaves could not be trusted nor easily trained to range cattle.

 

[armycowboy]

Cotton has always been big in Texas. It's currently the #1 cash crop grown here.

 

[Parrish]

More and more of the south's propaganda and myth-creation after the civil war and reconstruction gets exposed. Fascinating book I saw recently:

"Three noted Texan writers combine forces to tell the real story of the Alamo, dispelling the myths, exploring why they had their day for so long, and explaining why the ugly fight about its meaning is now coming to a head. Every nation needs its creation myth, and since Texas was a nation before it was a state, it's no surprise that its myths bite deep. There's no piece of history more important to Texans than the Battle of the Alamo, when Davy Crockett and a band of rebels went down in a blaze of glory fighting for independence from Mexico, losing the battle but setting Texas up to win the war. However, that version of events, as Forget the Alamo definitively shows, owes more to fantasy than reality. Just as the site of the Alamo was left in ruins for decades, its story was forgotten and twisted over time, with the contributions of Tejanos--Texans of Mexican origin, who fought alongside the Anglo rebels--scrubbed from the record, and the origin of the conflict over Mexico's push to abolish slavery papered over. Forget the Alamo provocatively explains the true story of the battle against the backdrop of Texas's struggle for independence, then shows how the sausage of myth got made in the Jim Crow South of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. As uncomfortable as it may be to hear, celebrating the Alamo has long had an echo of celebrating whiteness. In the past forty-some years, waves of revisionists have come at this topic, and at times have made real progress toward a more nuanced and inclusive story that doesn't alienate anyone. But we are not living in one of those times; the fight over the Alamo's meaning has become more pitched than ever in the past few years, even violent, as Texas's future begins to look more and more different from its past. It's the perfect time for a wise and generous-spirited book that shines the bright light of the truth into a place that's gotten awfully dark."

Forget the Alamo: The True Story of the... book by Bryan Burrough

www.thriftbooks.com

I posted about this after the book came out. I'm so glad to see it getting more press. Great book with lots of revelations about Bowie, Crockett and the syphilis-ridden Col. Travis. It was all about slavery.

 

[Parrish]

They’re not wrong. It’s hard to have a functioning society when parasites who want to destroy it for profit are aloud to promulgate false ideas

Well pot meet kettle. You are so wrong.

 

[Parrish]

Santa Ana was a usurper and many Mexicans attempted to secede from him. They simply failed. Santa Ana isn’t even well liked in Mexican historical circles

Also the Mexico of the 1830s was a secular republic and not a Catholic theocracy. It was initially a monarchy, but that’s another story.

False.

 

[Parrish]

The cotton industry was never giant in Texas. Most of Texas’s agricultural sector was in beef and they used hired workers for that. Slaves could not be trusted nor easily trained to range cattle.

False.

 

[Parrish]

Slavery played no significant part in the start of the Texas war for independence.

The Mexican constitution gave Mexican states considerable rights to freedoms and how they could govern themselves and at that time Texas was bundled together with the Mexican state of Coahuila and known as Coahuila y Tejas.

When Santa Anna came to power he fancied himself a dictator actually referring to himself in private as the "Napoleon of the west". His first effort at consolidating power was to make null the Mexican constitution in 1824 and centralize the government and then calling for huge trade tariffs and tax's on the states including Coahuila y Tejas.

In 1832 Mexican forces entered Texas moving north attempting to collect tax's and tariffs from Texas residences leading to skirmishes between the Mexican army and locals first at Anahuac but spreading to other areas as well.

The entire Texas battle for independence revolved around Santa Anna's cancelling of the Mexican constitution and Texians perceiving the tax, tariffs and lose of person freedoms as unjust.

While it is true that Mexico had banned slavery....Unlike the B.S you will find on Wikipedia about it....Slavery was never a big thing in Texas nor was it a huge economic thing like it was in the American south.

The whole thing started over tax's, tyranny and lose of freedoms...... Basically Texians had no use for a tyrant dictator who likes little girls like Santa Anna........Kinda like how we have no use for our current Tyrant dictator Senile Joe Biden who also likes little girls.

The book posted by the OP is mostly revisionist bullshit!

False.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

False.

None of that is false. And you know it because you can’t even explain what about it is false

 

[Parrish]

None of that is false. And you know it because you can’t even explain what about it is false

False. And false. Spreading lies, as you are, doesn't make it true,

 

[armycowboy]

None of that is false. And you know it because you can’t even explain what about it is false

Stop posting lies. Cotton was and is a major part of the Texas economy. When it comes to the Civil War, you're just making up shit.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Stop posting lies. Cotton was and is a major part of the Texas economy. When it comes to the Civil War, you're just making up shit.

Define major. Cotton was not the backbone of Texas is economy, nor was it ever. Texas is not Alabama or South Carolina, or Mississippi.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Part of me wishes I could. I wasted a year of my life learning Texas history. There was a point that I could name every Texan commander at the Alama, Goliad, and San Jancinto, and could tell you the route that Santa Anna took through Texas.

 

[armycowboy]

Define major. Cotton was not the backbone of Texas is economy, nor was it ever. Texas is not Alabama or South Carolina, or Mississippi.

#1 cash crop is major. You got caught making shit up and talking out your ass and now you're tap dancing to try to save face.

 

[ecofarm]

I more or less categorically can't trust any historian pontificating about "whiteness" to render a fair and objective account of any event in North American history.

It's a shame, because it might be a fascinating book. Even so, who can trust a book that ostensibly advertises an anti-white bias in the synopsis? I want the truth, not "a more nuanced and inclusive story" or a screed about "celebrating whiteness".

What a major racial hang up. I don't see a problem with it. It's just a term, employed in academic circles even. Words don't upset me like that.

I can't be thrown off an idea because a word I don't understand upsets me. I guess if my identity was based on being white it might be different.