Forget the Alamo

[bleubird]

I have not read the book, but have heard some interviews with the author. And Texass gets to write the history.

Any thoughts?

https://www.npr.org/2021/06/16/1006907140/forget-the-alamo-texas-history-bryan-burrough

 

[Mediancat]

I have the book checked out of the library and plan to read it shortly. it looks good. I know that a Texas museum cancelled an appearance by athe authors because of pressure from at least the Lt. Governor of the state.

Rob

 

[skepticalbip]

History is an interesting subject. But it should be read, not as absolute truth but, as revealing the biases of the writer. Both Mexican and U.S. history do agree on a general understanding of what happened. The primary difference being who were identified as the "good guys" and who were the "bad guys'. From the article you linked, it looks like the writer's bias is to follow the current trend of believing that any historical event was driven by slavery.

The most interesting story I know from the war (Texan war for independence, as history in the U.S. calls it or the war of Texan rebellion as Mexican history sees it) is the saga of Santa Anna's leg that still remains in the Illinois State Military Museum.

 

[Tharmas]

History is an interesting subject. But it should be read, not as absolute truth but, as revealing the biases of the writer. Both Mexican and U.S. history do agree on a general understanding of what happened.

I agree with this statement, although perhaps "bias" is too emotionally charged as a word.

From the article you linked, it looks like the writer's bias is to follow the current trend of believing that any historical event was driven by slavery.

I find your bias is revealed in this statement.

The most interesting story I know from the war (Texan war for independence, as history in the U.S. calls it or the war of Texan rebellion as Mexican history sees it) is the saga of Santa Anna's leg that still remains in the Illinois State Military Museum.

I don't know this story and would be happy if you could expand on it.

My Alamo story: When John Kennedy was running for the presidency, he gave a campaign speech in front of the Alamo. The crowds were much larger than had been expected, and when it came time for the affair to wind down, Kennedy nervously asked State Senator Maverick is there was a rear exit they could sneak out of. "Senator," Maverick replied, "if there was a back door to the Alamo we'd have a lot fewer Texas heroes."

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Is nothing sacred?

The title of this book should have been "Forget John Wayne and Davy Crockett and Jim Bowie and Roy Rogers and Apple Pie"

I have not read the book, but have heard some interviews with the author. And Texass gets to write the history.

Any thoughts?

https://www.npr.org/2021/06/16/1006907140/forget-the-alamo-texas-history-bryan-burrough

This wins 1st prize for most put-downs of sacred heroes (they were drunks and losers, etc.). Could it be exaggerated? Is "Truth, Justice, and the American Way" all nothing but horseshit?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett agrees that Davy Crockett was captured and executed rather than fighting-to-the-death as a hero, as in the John Wayne movie and Walt Disney etc.

Jim Lehrer's book should be mentioned, and the movie -- Viva Max! --- Peter Ustinov plays General Maximilian de Santos who brings his platoon across the Mexican border and re-occupies the Alamo (the museum), even raising the Mexican flag over it. San Antonio Police Chief goes nuts, local National Guard summoned, led by a goofy U.S. Brigadier General (Jonathan Winters). After they botch it, a private armed militia force shows up led by a gun-slinging Texas redneck.

 

[steve_bank]

The popular narrative of the Alamo is bogus, not new.

Initially the American colonists were welcomed by the Mexicans, and the Americans turned on the Mexicans. The idea of courageous Texans bravely fighting for freedom is bogus.

Pulp fiction took off in the 19th century. A lot of popular books sensationalizing people and events.

There is the popular image of Danial Boone and Davy Crocket, I grew up watching the TV show Daniel Boone with Fess Parker. Today when I see itnow it is just plain goofy riddled with stereotypes of Native Americans. And of course that stupid movie The Alamo.

 

[skepticalbip]

Too many confuse Hollywood stories for history.

 

[skepticalbip]

The popular narrative of the Alamo is bogus, not new.

Initially the American colonists were welcomed by the Mexicans,

Not just Americans and not just welcomed. After Mexico won their independence from France/Spain, they initiated a program to attract settlers to their northern territory. This included land grants to anyone who would settle there. The area was sparsely populated and Mexico wanted more people there for protection from indigenous tribes and to boost the Mexican economy. Settlers came from around the world but mostly from the U.S. to take advantage of the land grants (sorta like the Oklahoma land rush when the U.S. wanted people to settle the west).

and the Americans turned on the Mexicans. The idea of courageous Texans bravely fighting for freedom is bogus.

That seems to be a judgement rather than history.

Before Santa Anna became president, Mexico's government was set up as a federalist system like the U.S.. Mexican states and territories had a great deal of autonomy. The government changed to a much more centralized system under Santa Anna. The loss of autonomy brought about uprisings in many Mexican states, including Texas. Most of the uprisings were successfully put down but Texas proved to be more difficult.

Pulp fiction took off in the 19th century. A lot of popular books sensationalizing people and events.

There is the popular image of Danial Boone and Davy Crocket, I grew up watching the TV show Daniel Boone with Fess Parker. Today when I see itnow it is just plain goofy riddled with stereotypes of Native Americans. And of course that stupid movie The Alamo.

True. Screen plays and history are very different things.

 

[steve_bank]

Too many confuse Hollywood stories for history.

The 10 Commandments.

I jut watched parts of the old movie Cleopatra with Burton and Taylor. Today it seems like a horrible movie. My generatio grew up on those movies. I grew up seeing Custer as a hero batting those savage Indians. He was no hero.

 

[steve_bank]

I expect slavery was part of the conflict between the settlers and Mexico.


I doubt there was anything noble about the Alamo. It is one of our American myths. American frontiersmen galantly fighting the despicable Mexican's.

From what I read there is no accurate first hand account of how it played out inside the Alamo, and they make have run instead of making a suicide stand.

 

[Politesse]

Too many confuse Hollywood stories for history.

To the point of seriously influencing historians themselves, for generations. I'm kind of fascinated by the way stage, radio, and television presentations managed to promote Turner's Frontier Thesis, cementing it in the public imagination. Even the public's memory, of events that they should have remembered, in the early days. Geronimo and Tȟatȟáŋka Íyotake weren't long in the grave before their campaigns were being utterly, unrecognizably transformed by public media portrayals. Even people whose personal histories and family experiences did not match up with the official story gladly welcomed the reframing of their motives and outcomes.

 

[Politesse]

I expect slavery was part of the conflict between the settlers and Mexico.

Enslavement was common on both sides, albeit illegally in Mexico, where the practice was officially outlawed in 1829. This law was never enforced, because it could not be enforced by that point, north of the Rio Grande. The "revolutionaries" did make a lot of hay over the issue, but I am certain this was more to attract political support from the US than it was the true cause of conflict.

Certainly, the sudden acquisition of so many new states and territories seemingly south of the Mason-Dixon line at the end of the war helped destabilize the United States and enflame tensions over the supposed compromises that had been strung around the slavery issue.

 

[skepticalbip]

I expect slavery was part of the conflict between the settlers and Mexico.


I doubt there was anything noble about the Alamo. It is one of our American myths. American frontiersmen galantly fighting the despicable Mexican's.

From what I read there is no accurate first hand account of how it played out inside the Alamo, and they make have run instead of making a suicide stand.

Indeed there is a lot of myth about the Alamo but you seem to have created your own myth.

A reasonable understanding of someone's motives and methods during some historical event first requires a general understanding of what the hell was going on at the time. Texas was part of Mexico... what was going on in Mexico?

e.g. There was a time that the British colonists on the island of Malta shot down any Italian airplane or sunk any Italian ship that approached the island... those fucking evil, xenophobic Brits. /end satire (and no, this was not added as an identical situation as the battle of the Alamo but to show that a broader understanding of what was going on is needed before any reasonable judgement can be made.)

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The title of this book should have been "Forget John Wayne and Davy Crockett and Jim Bowie and Roy Rogers and Apple Pie"

I have not read the book, but have heard some interviews with the author. And Texass gets to write the history.

Any thoughts?

https://www.npr.org/2021/06/16/1006907140/forget-the-alamo-texas-history-bryan-burrough

This wins 1st prize for most put-downs of sacred heroes (they were drunks and losers, etc.). Could it be exaggerated? Is "Truth, Justice, and the American Way" all nothing but horseshit?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett agrees that Davy Crockett was captured and executed rather than fighting-to-the-death as a hero, as in the John Wayne movie and Walt Disney etc.

Jim Lehrer's book should be mentioned, and the movie -- Viva Max! --- Peter Ustinov plays General Maximilian de Santos who brings his platoon across the Mexican border and re-occupies the Alamo (the museum), even raising the Mexican flag over it. San Antonio Police Chief goes nuts, local National Guard summoned, led by a goofy U.S. Brigadier General (Jonathan Winters). After they botch it, a private armed militia force shows up led by a gun-slinging Texas redneck.

I have absolutely no idea what your position is via this terribly written post.

 

[TomC]

This included land grants to anyone who would settle there.

This is the kind of subtle white washing that makes history hard to understand sometimes.

Mexico did not give land grants to anyone who wanted to settle there. Required for getting a land grant was swearing fealty to Mexico. No oath, no land.

Tom

 

[ideologyhunter]

Alamo defenders: incredibly courageous
Santa Anna: vain, cruel; shot all the wounded at the end of the battle and had all the bodies burned
Justification for rebelling against Mexico: very shaky. From what was to follow in 1846-48, very calculated. The Mexican War is one of the sorriest and most amoral chapters in U.S. history. Lincoln left Congress over it. Grant and Theodore Roosevelt are on record as calling it an unjustified war of territorial acquisition. The motives are transparent. Hilarious that today's Repubs now have shart attacks just thinking about "the brown people" crossing the border from the south.

 

[Politesse]

Hilarious that today's Repubs now have shart attacks just thinking about "the brown people" crossing the border from the south.

In fairness, the Republicans always opposed the Mexican War, though it was done and over by the time their party formed.

 

[skepticalbip]

Alamo defenders: incredibly courageous
Santa Anna: vain, cruel; shot all the wounded at the end of the battle and had all the bodies burned
Justification for rebelling against Mexico: very shaky. From what was to follow in 1846-48, very calculated. The Mexican War is one of the sorriest and most amoral chapters in U.S. history. Lincoln left Congress over it. Grant and Theodore Roosevelt are on record as calling it an unjustified war of territorial acquisition. The motives are transparent. Hilarious that today's Repubs now have shart attacks just thinking about "the brown people" crossing the border from the south.

You are conflating two different wars. The Texas revolution happened between 1835 and 1836. It was only one of several Mexican states in revolt after the Mexican Centralist Republic that came to power in 1835 abolished the Mexican constitution of the preceding First Federalist Republic. Texas won their independence in 1836 and became an independent republic - the other Mexican states in rebellion were put down.

The Republic of Texas joined the U.S. in 1845 after nine years as an independent country becoming the twenty-eighth state.

You are right that the Mexican-American war was likely just a land grab. It was waged from 1846 to 1848. After Texas became part of the U.S. In 1846, there was a land dispute between the U.S. and Mexico as to where the boundary of Texas was. Mexico claimed that the boundary was the Nueces River and the U.S. claimed it was the Rio Grande River. Mexico didn't dispute that Texas had won its independence in 1836.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Texas applied for annexation into the U.S. in 1836 -- but it was too much a political hot potato to be accomplished that year (bringing in a huge new slave-holding territory, antagonizing Mexico.) There is a clear line between '36 and '46, it seems to me.

 

[Bronzeage]

The Battle of the Alamo was a big misunderstanding. It was two armies which did not understand how the other operated.

The Mexican Army was modeled on modern European Armies. It was based on planning and logistics. Even though they wanted to imitate Napoleon, who was famous for fast moving formations, the Mexican Army moved fairly slowly. Following modern tactics, force needed to be supported and concentrated. When Santa Ana met first resistance in San Antonio, it looked like a good place to set up camp and let the baggage train catch up.

The Alamo was indefensible against any force larger than the men who were inside the Alamo. It was never intended to be a fortress. The only hope they had was to hold out until a very large reinforcement could arrive, which would lead to a field battle, and the Alamo would play a very small part. Reinforcements never arrived and everyone was killed. Whether or not they were brave and gallant to the end does not really factor into the story.

The delay at San Antonio, combined with the slow pace of the Mexican Army gave the Texans time to solve their most serious problem, which was a lack of organization and non existent logistics. The Alamo fell on March 6th and Santa Ana reached San Jacinto in the third week of April. Once there, the Mexican Army set up scattered camps, with Santa Ana's headquarters put in a very poor defensible site. The Texans had good intelligence and were able to coordinate a fairly complex surprise attack, which ended with the capture of Santa Ana himself. There were enough Mexican troops still under arms at the time to possibly turn things around, but without Santa Ana, there was no one who could take command and salvage the situation. On of the aspects of modern European style armies was it did not encourage initiative among junior officers.

The summary is stark. The Alamo was a failed mission which was a bad idea from the start. They had no idea the size of the force they would face, but any disciplined force with artillery would make short work of an adobe mission. The Texan Army was incapable of reinforcing them and once the Mexican Army arrived, their best option for survival would have been a fast retreat. They didn't do that.

Whether the Battle of the Alamo was critical to the defeat of Santa Ana, or not, is difficult to gauge. Beside the fact that Santa Ana greatly underestimated his opponents, it was the slow pace of his army and poor choice of ground, which led to the Texan victory.