snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Urban Legends > History

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07 March 2008, 11:47 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,633
Soapbox Debunking the myth of the Alamo

Quote:
James Bowie, David Crockett (he did not, as it happens, go by “Davy”) and the rest of the defenders did not choose to die as martyrs. Bowie and Crockett wanted to stage a hit-and-run guerrilla action and harass Santa Anna from the woods, over hilly, broken terrain where they had an advantage. But they were victims of commanding Col. William Travis’ mistake of holding up at the Alamo in anticipation of reinforcements that never arrived. So the whole thing was a catastrophic blunder by land-grabbing thieves in the spirit of America’s infamous idea – Manifest Destiny. Added to which, once General Sam Houston outsmarted Santa Anna and won this land war, white Texans summarily kicked every last Mexican Texan, including Capt. Juan Seguin, who’d survived the Battle of the Alamo, right out of the newly “free” country.
http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/article...yth-alamo.html
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08 March 2008, 12:49 AM
General Redwood General Redwood is offline
 
Join Date: 06 April 2007
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 773
United States

What an absolute piece of crap journalism!

Quote:
The Texans living there were colonists who’d agreed to a contract with Mexico. And then they decided they didn’t have to live up to their end of the deal; that they could just decide the land was theirs.
No you NFBSK jackass, Texan's didn't just decide to leave because they wanted out of some 'deal' or just because they wanted to practice slavery (which was illegal under Mexican law, but was allowed to happen anyway).

Texan's, and this includes Mexican's not just white people, rebelled because
1) In 1834, Santa Anna went through a process of dissolving state legislatures, disarming state militias, and abolishing the Constitution of 1824. To make matters worse, he imprisoned some cotton plantation owners who refused to raise their assigned crops. These actions triggered outrage throughout the nation of Mexico..
2) They were unhappy with the location of the capital of the Mexican state Texas was a part of.
3) Mexico had no freedom of religion and required tithing to the Catholic church.
4) Texan's wanted to grow cotton, which was in high demand throughout Europe. But Mexico demanded that the settlers produce corn, grain and beef and dictated which crops each settler would plant and harvest.


And Texas wasn't the only part of Mexico that rebelled. The states of Yucatan, Zacatecas also rebelled.

Mexico lost Texas because of Santa Anna and his brutal dictatorship, not because white people stole it.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08 March 2008, 02:40 AM
ASL's Avatar
ASL ASL is offline
 
Join Date: 04 July 2003
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 5,283
Default

Quote:
By the time Texas became a state nine years later, it’d been appropriated and overrun by white folk who had no business being there in the first place. Just like every other square inch of space in America.
The guy is definitely a hypocrite and quite possibly a racist. The "Native" Americans walked here, everyone else got here by boat or air. It's not the rest of the world's fault the land bridge was submerged and it took a few thousand years to develop the technology necessary to re-open the western hemisphere to immigration. Hey... Wait a second... Aren't a lot of Mexicans descended from Spanish colonists? Last I checked, they had about as checkered a past in the New World as the rest of the European community. I hear the people they replaced, the Aztecs and the Mayans and the Inca, weren't too nice to their subjects either. So, does that mean that anyone who isn't white, regardless of how much "Native" blood they have (or how brutal the native civilization that they were a part of was back in the day) is entitled to be in this hemisphere, but the damn dirty whities aren't, no matter how far back their ties go?

Once again, more revisionist crap that might have some basis in fact but just boils over in racial hate and hypocrisy. The author of this article may very well be white. If he is, then I invite him to follow his own convictions and get the hell out of the country. I'm not a love it or leave it type, but if you're a member of group X and you say that group X doesn't deserve to be here, then you should be the first to go.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08 March 2008, 06:35 AM
peneshaw
 
Posts: n/a
Australia

The causes of the conflict are complex, so I won’t go into that issue. However, I have a problem with this passage:
Quote:
Further, James Bowie, David Crockett ... and the rest of the defenders did not choose to die as martyrs. Bowie and Crockett wanted to stage a hit-and-run guerrilla action ... But they were victims of commanding Col. William Travis’ mistake of holding up at the Alamo in anticipation of reinforcements that never arrived.
So what? Whatever their long-term strategy, a relatively small number of defenders stood against an army. Why and how they died (a few, including Crockett, being reported to have surrendered), or that fact that there were possibly survivors doesn’t diminish that. Given that Santa Ana was fatally delayed by the siege of the Alamo (which he could have bypassed, leaving a small force to hold the garrison in place) and considering the galvanizing effect that “Remember the Alamo” had on the Texans at San Jacinto, this conclusion – “So the whole thing was a catastrophic blunder” – is inappropriate.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10 March 2008, 12:31 AM
Natalie Natalie is offline
 
Join Date: 15 January 2008
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 2,171
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by General Redwood View Post
Texan's wanted to grow cotton, which was in high demand throughout Europe. But Mexico demanded that the settlers produce corn, grain and beef and dictated which crops each settler would plant and harvest.
They Texans also wanted to own slaves, which was illegal in Mexico.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11 November 2015, 06:16 AM
Jambi Jambi is offline
 
 
Join Date: 03 November 2015
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ASL View Post
THey... Wait a second... Aren't a lot of Mexicans descended from Spanish colonists?
Most Mexicans are half, mostly or fully "Native" American:
http://web.archive.org/web/201406241...eaning-of.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASL View Post
Once again, more revisionist crap that might have some basis in fact but just boils over in racial hate and hypocrisy. The author of this article may very well be white. If he is, then I invite him to follow his own convictions and get the hell out of the country. I'm not a love it or leave it type, but if you're a member of group X and you say that group X doesn't deserve to be here, then you should be the first to go.
Dwight Hobbes is African-American:
http://www.beatbadrecords.com/dwighthobbes.html
Frankly, I think Hobbes is a racist with an agenda. He has no evidence to back up any of his claims. He is simply trying to stir up hatred between Anglo-Americans and Mexicans.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11 November 2015, 06:17 AM
Jambi Jambi is offline
 
 
Join Date: 03 November 2015
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2
Default

In order to understand what happened back then, we must first understand that "Mexican" is not a race.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRio3Y1lCmQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0Lrk7hm_vM

Nor were Mexicans categorize as a race back then.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.