Alamo & Freedom?

[Ol Gabe]

E-Friends, Pards & Pardettes, All, just for the sake of discussion, only...
The following was sent to me today as an observation on our Freedom, and yes, I feel 'Freedom' needs a capital F.
It poses an interesting comparison to the folks that fought at the Alamo, and I'm certainly not trying to sway anybodies opinion one way or the other, I only pass it on as an interesting and conceptual comparison, I'll leave it to you to take it as you will.
Best regards and good researching!
'Ol Gabe
...
Who Looks Foolish, Alamo Heroes Or Us?
by Chuck Baldwin
March 6, 2007

On this date back in 1836, the Alamo fell. For more than 13 days, 186 brave and determined patriots withstood Santa Anna's seasoned army of over 4,000 troops. To a man, the defenders of that mission fort knew they would never leave those ramparts alive. They had several opportunities to leave and live. Yet, they chose to fight and die. How foolish they must look to this generation of spoiled Americans.

It is difficult to recall that stouthearted men such as Davy Crockett (a nationally known frontiersman and former Congressman), Will Travis (only 23 years old with a little baby at home), and Jim Bowie (a wealthy landowner with properties on both sides of the Rio Grande) really existed. These were real men with real dreams and real desires. Real blood flowed through their veins. They loved their families and enjoyed life as much as any of us. There was something different about them, however. They possessed a commitment to liberty that transcended personal safety and comfort.

Liberty is an easy word to say, but it is a hard word to live up to. Freedom has little to do with financial gain or personal pleasure. Accompanying Freedom is her constant and unattractive companion, Responsibility. Neither is she an only child. Patriotism and Morality are her sisters. They are inseparable; destroy one and all will die.

Early in the siege, Travis wrote these words to the people of Texas: "Fellow Citizens & Compatriots: I am besieged by a thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Anna. . . . The enemy has demanded a surrender at discretion, otherwise the garrison are to be put to the sword . . . I have answered the demand with a cannon shot & our flag still waves proudly from the walls. I shall never surrender or retreat. . . . VICTORY OR DEATH! P.S. The Lord is on our side. . . ."

As you read those words, remember that Travis and the others did not have the A.C.L.U., P.E.T.A., People for the un-American Way, and the National Education Association telling them how intolerant and narrow-minded their notions of honor and patriotism were. A hostile media did not constantly castigate them as a bunch of wild-eyed extremists. As school children, they were not taught that their forefathers were nothing more than racist jerks.

The brave men at the Alamo labored under the belief that America (and Texas) really was "the land of the free and the home of the brave." They believed God was on their side and that the freedom of future generations depended on their courage and resolve. They further believed their posterity would remember their sacrifice as an act of love and devotion. It all looks pale now.

By today's standards, the gallant men of the Alamo appear rather foolish. After all, they had no chance of winning-none. However, the call for pragmatism and practicality was never sounded. Instead, they answered the clarion call, "Victory or death!"

Please try to remember the heroes of the Alamo as you watch our gutless political and religious leaders surrender to compromise and political correctness. Try to recall the time in this country when ordinary men and women had the courage of their convictions and were willing to sacrifice their lives for freedom and independence.

One thing is certain: those courageous champions at the Alamo did not die for a political party or for some "lesser of two evils" mantra. They fought and died for a principle, and that principle was liberty and independence. So did the men at Lexington and Concord. That is our heritage.

Today, however, our national leaders are in the process of turning America over to the very forces that the Alamo defenders gave their lives resisting. On second thought, do they look foolish, or do we?

© Chuck Baldwin

This column is archived as http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20070306.html
 

[Silver Creek Slim]

Thanks fer sharing it, 'Ol Gabe.

Slim

[French Jack]

You said it ALL.

[Fox Creek Kid]

Remember this as well: the Alamo was in another country. The people at the Alamo were armed insurgents IN ANOTHER COUNTRY & NOT FIGHTING FOR THE U.S.A.   
"In 1827, U.S. President John Quincy Adams offered Mexico US$1 million to buy Texas, which was rejected. Two years later, in 1829, President Andrew Jackson tried again with an offer of US$5 million, which Mexico also rejected. The same year, Spain attempted to re-conquer their former colony. Santa Anna swiftly defeated the invading Spanish army at Tampico and was hailed as a national hero. In 1830, Mexico became alarmed by the number of immigrants crossing the border from the U.S. into Mexico. With the recent Fredonian Rebellion and the U.S. so obviously hungry for Texas, there was concern about who was entering the state. Mexico passed the "April 6 law". These would annul prospective or incomplete settlements previously approved in various grants given to various empresarios. The decree allowed taxes to be collected, provided a larger military presence in Texas, and ended immigration into Texas. Austin eventually got the law repealed after three years of working with the Mexican government, but in the meantime military measures were enacted to enforce this law, which triggered an uprising in Anahuac, Texas. This was the first of what would be called the Anahuac Disturbances."

Freedom had nothing to do with it. It was greed pure and simple. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Revolution

[Irish Dave]

Amen, Gabe.

[Tensleep]

Freedom had nothing to do with it. It was greed pure and simple. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Revolution

You quote revisionist history, the Anglo settlers were INVITED by the Mexican Gov't, PRIOR to Santa Anna and his Dictatorship.
They had become Mexican citizens, most had embraced the Catholic religion and all were hard working men and women try to make a place for themselves.

MANY of the patriots that were involved in the Texas Revolution were orginal Mexican settlers (Hispanic surname) that were fed up with the heavy hand of Santa Anna and the goal was to create a NEW Mexican state.

At his capture Santa Anna denounced the "Texicans" and swore that they would never get Mexican statehood.... ergo, The Republic of Texas

[El Mac]

You quote revisionist history, the Anglo settlers were INVITED by the Mexican Gov't, PRIOR to Santa Anna and his Dictatorship.
They had become Mexican citizens, most had embraced the Catholic religion and all were hard working men and women try to make a place for themselves.

MANY of the patriots that were involved in the Texas Revolution were orginal Mexican settlers (Hispanic surname) that were fed up with the heavy hand of Santa Anna and the goal was to create a NEW Mexican state.

At his capture Santa Anna denounced the "Texicans" and swore that they would never get Mexican statehood.... ergo, The Republic of Texas

Come on Tensleep!  Don't let truth and history ever get in the way of hand wringing revisionist apologism and self flagellation.   

[Tensleep]

Come on Tensleep!  Don't let truth and history ever get in the way of hand wringing revisionist apologism and self flagellation.   

LOL!!!!

I started to not respond at all, but... then MY Texican came out an' boiled over. 

[El Mac]

LOL!!!!

I started to not respond at all, but... then MY Texican came out an' boiled over. 

I'm just glad you did it fer me so I didn't have to.

[Fox Creek Kid]

That's not revisionist history, it's fact. Texas was a part of Mexico. Whether they were invited or not has nothing to do with it. We had no business interfering there. I believe Abraham Lincoln summed up the general feeling in 1848 with the following words in reference to President Polk and the needless war with Mexico:

...His first item is, that the Rio Grande was the Western boundary of Louisiana, as we purchased it of France in 1803; and seeming to expect this to be disputed, he argues over the amount of nearly a page, to prove it true; at the end of which he lets us know, that by the treaty of 1819, we sold to Spain the whole country from the Rio Grande eastward, to the Sabine. Now, admitting for the present, that the Rio Grande, was the boundary of Louisiana, what, under heaven, had that to do with the present boundary between us and Mexico? How, Mr. Chairman, the line, that once divided your land from mine, can still be the boundary between us, after I have sold my land to you, is, to me, beyond all comprehension. And how any man, with an honest purpose only, of proving the truth, could ever have thought of introducing such a fact to prove such an issue, is equally incomprehensible. His next piece of evidence is that "The Republic of Texas always claimed this river (Rio Grande) as her western boundary[.]" That is not true, in fact. Texas has claimed it, but she has not always claimed it. There is, at least, one distinguished exception. Her state constitution,--the republic's most solemn, and well considered act--that which may, without impropriety, be called her last will and testament revoking all others--makes no such claim. But suppose she had always claimed it. Has not Mexico always claimed the contrary? so that there is but claim against claim, leaving nothing proved, until we get back of the claims, and find which has the better foundation. Though not in the order in which the President presents his evidence,...

[Tensleep]

That's not revisionist history, it's fact. Texas was a part of Mexico. Whether they were invited or not has nothing to do with it. We had no business interfering there. I believe Abraham Lincoln summed up the general feeling in 1848 with the following words in reference to President Polk and the needless war with Mexico:

The war with Mexico in 1836 (Texas Revolution) was not started by nor abetted by the United States of America.

The United States DID NOT rush troops to the aid of the Texicans. The men who DID come to Texas from the US were men who answered freedom's call, volunteers, friends of the Mexican citizens of Texas.

The Texas Revolution, was just that, a war between Mexican citizens and the Mexican gov't, citizens revolting because of high taxes, high handed dealings, unkept promises and opression.

The war of which Lincoln spoke, The War with Mexico, took place in 1847-48, after Texas became a state in 1845.

[El Mac]

Once again, Tensleep clouds history with fact.  Now you KNOW thats not PC!

I reckon ol Fox Creek Kid would have us return our southwest and west back to its rightful owners...the subjects formerly known as Spainards (what were those crazy Mexicans thinking when they revolted agin Spain anyway?).  But wait...did it all belong to its Native inhabitants before even the Spainards claimed it?

Now we are in a true pickle.  Best call in the UN to set up some observation posts and monitoring stations.

Bottom line, Texicans fought for it, died for it and now own it.  Then they joined the Union.  Then they unjoined the Union.  Then the Union won that little blowout (hey wait a minute - wasn't that Pres. Lincoln leading that charge?  Kinda changed his tune didn't he?  Or maybe he just wanted to hand it all back to Mexicans on a silver platter after The War???) and it "reclaimed" Texas as her own.

Please put the Revisionism down.  Do it now and back away from it.  No one will git hurt!

[Delmonico]

It is almost the same thing that happened it the 1770 over in the area ya live now Tensleep, perhaps we should just become a part of Jolly Ol' England again. After all they were invited to live there and when they got tired of being mistreated and revolted there were folks from other countries that came and helped the cause of freedom.

[Cyrille]

Here's my two cents worth. I do not claim to know much about Texican history but I do know this---"Might makes Right!"
Now we can argue until the cows come home, about what is PC and what is not PC and wheither we are on the side of PC or against it.
  But always, throughout the history of the civilized or un-civilized world whicheverway one perfers to see it, "Might makes Right" be it East, West, North, South or Central. That IMHO is an undenyable fact of life. Who is it writes the histories? Who is it makes the laws? Answer: the winners! Sure noble and unselfish deeds have been and will continue to be done for "the good of the people" But what is "good" is decided on by those in power. What may be good for one segment of the population may be not-so-good for another.
Sadam forwarded his agenda and those who were with him prospered, but woe to those who opposed him.
Then "Big Brother" to the world intervined and woe came to Sadam and his cronies, why? because they were deposed by the world's "Big Brother." Proving, IMHO that "Might makes Right"  I think what the German poet Goethe said about the German people applies to the Human Race in general; "I have often felt a bitter sorrow at the thought of the German people, which is so estimable in the individual and so wretched in the generality..."

[Ol Gabe]

Interesting comments, all.
FWIW, in the recent issue of MILITARY HISTORY Stephen L. Hardin, professor of History at The Victoria College in Texas and author of several books dealing with the Texas Revolution, suggests the following in an article entitled 'What we learned...from the Alamo' (his points are edited here for brevity:
When facing a siege, hole up in a real fort...Alamo was...Franciscan mission with walls designed to stop Comanches, not artillery.
Stay close to your garrisons, not 90 miles away.
Secure your lines of communication.
Expect the unexpected. No one thought Santa Anna would fight in winter...it caught the Alamo garrison by surprise.
Don't underestimate your enemy. Santa Anna bombarded the Alamo nightly for two weeks to deprive the Texians of sleep...then silenced his guns the night before the assault. When he struck at 5:00 AM Travis and most of his men were asleep.
Consider political reasons. Texas officials ignored calls for assistance...the provisional government...had disbanded in a fit of squabbling. By the time they reorganized, it was too late.
Arrange ample transportation. The 190 defenders had far fewer than 190 horses, so a breakout was unthinkable. The Mexican lancers would have skewered fleeing soldiers.
Don't neglect perimeter security...the Mexicans neutralized them (Travis's pickets) before they could sound the alarm.
If you're the general, act like one. Travis behaved like a good soldier but not a commander. He manned a gun at the Alamo's most vulnerable spot and was an early casualty. When he went down, command and control crumbled.
Never annihilate your enemy. The Alamo defenders did not fight to the last man. Rather, Santa Anna had them killed to the last man. If he had taken prisoners, he would have deprived the battle of its moral power, and Americans would "Remember the Alamo" only as a terrible defeat.

Hardin's article is available in MILITARY HISTORY magazine, found on most newstands and in bookstores. I encourage all to read his article and seek out his books as he has a good slant on the events of the time. His modern military observations may seem a bit too much to the reader, but provide us with a good perspective. Since we can only react with what history we have access to, and it is sometimes re-written for us over and over again to fit the situation as others have suggested above, this gives us further insight to what went on. Watch any TV documentary on the Alamo or read articles written by the folks that run the museum and you'll get several differing impressions and interpretations, all correct in their own time and place.
All in all, a good discussion on something that happened this week/month out West all those years ago.
Best regards and good reseaching!
'Ol Gabe

[deucedaddyj]

I think it should be pointed out that land doesn't really belong to anybody. We simply use it untill it's someone elses turn to take it.

Also, I don't think it matters if what the men of the Alamo did was right or wrong. I think what matters is that they believed it was right, and were willing to fight for what they thought was right. You don't find men and women who will do that anymore.

Throughout history there have been opposers to every great conflict. Only about half of the people living in America supported the American Revoloution. Almost nobody supported the Civil War. People generally just don't like change.

[Fox Creek Kid]

El Mac, I'd skip the personal attacks as that will get you banned. 

[Books OToole]

Actually Tensleep & Fox Creek are both correct sorta:

The U.S. Government did not "officially" send troops to intercede in the Texas Revolution.  However they were massed (as much as the tiny U.S. Army could) at cantonment Jessup in Lousianna.

From that point there were many "deserters" who later returned to the U.S. army.  And according to Dr. Stephen Hardin (previously mentioned in this thread) in his book Texian Illiad, many of these deserters participated in the Battle of San Jancinto.

History is rarely Black & White.

Respectfully;
Major Miguel Luis Santiago Guzman de Bexar
Chief of Artillery at the recent Seige of the Alamo

aka  Books O'Toole

[El Mac]

El Mac, I'd skip the personal attacks as that will get you banned. 

My friend, no offense meant. 

However, I think you have to expect that when you make an statement like that, it will be challenged.

[Ol Gabe]

Again, just for the sake of discussion...
In the past couple of decades Hollywood and independent movie/documentary-makers have often turned to local, regional and national 'historical reenactor' groups to fill the ranks of extras and experts on a film, such as the most recent 'The Alamo' starring Billy Bob Thorton. Now, I Don't know for sure, but I doubt if any reenactors were used during the making of the John Wayne version or the Disney version with Fess Parker, but I do happen to know of several midwestern Buckskinners and other reenactors that were used as extras on the Brian Keith and Sam Elliot versions.
Have any of you readers/posters been involved in one of these productions or know anyone that was? The stories that I have heard from guys that went down for the Elliot version were quite enlightening, as far as the movie industry goes, and that some of the 'stars' were actually more human than others and really took an interest in what the reenactors were doing and how they got on during the filming.
One story dealt with Sam Elliot and an old Buckskinner I knew. As he related the story, one night during the filming, Elliot showed up at his military camp where the 'Skinners were all set up, it was where they stayed and was also used as a set-piece/scene for the film. Elliot, in costume, hunkered down next to his fire and had some coffee with the Boys, then said, as the story goes, "This would taste a might bit better with 'something' in it or a Beer to wash THAT down!" The 'Skinners all heartily laughed, then Elliot turned to his assistant and told him to go get a couple cases of cold Beer for the 'Troops', they did, the Boys had a grand night and Elliot made a lot of friends. They said the next day he noticed that the food wagon had closed down early for some reason and that some of the 'Skinners and their families hadn't eaten yet as they were scheduled to and were heading back to camp to burn a Hot Dog. He rounded up the Food Craft Services manager and had him open up the wagon and serve the extras a good meal, making a ton of what we would now call 'style points'. After that they said he would always ask the reenactors if it 'was real', and he would get the straight poop from them and change the script if-needed. Well, it IS a good story, true or not.
Another dealt with the rubber bayonets the armourer issued the Mexican Infantry reenactors to be used in the march into Bexar. In the Elliot movie, they said that if you looked really, really close, you could actually see the bayonets vibrate and wiggle, and that some actually did bounce up and down! One of the Boys from Minnesnowta that was portraying a Mexican Soldier told me that all the other reenactors laughed so much when the armourer gave them rubber bayonets from the supply trailer that they would 'stab' each other and fall down 'dead', this miffed the costume folks because the Soldiers were getting dirty before they were supposed to, but the reenactors said "Hey! If YOU just marched through the Mexican mountains in Winter, you'd be filthy!" The costumers never said another word, or so the story goes.
Best regards and tell your reenactor/film story if you have one!
'Ol Gabe