What isn't mentioned here is the part played by the Tejano's in the actual fight and their sacrifice. Yes the 'Holy Trinity' were there, but also people like Gregorio Esparza were a very significant part of the Texian force.
@marthagomez7335
2 ай бұрын
Traitors!
@zinnmarx
Жыл бұрын
Banned from the Alamo, lol, Texan propagandists take their shit way too seriously
@thefinalverdict3080
9 ай бұрын
By the way, this is you opinion, lets be clear, and you know nothing about the Alamo
@kenkaplan3654
Жыл бұрын
Crockett was not horrible. He was charismatic and had ethics. His political career ended because he clashed with Jackson and opposed the Indian Removal Act. He said 'my decision would not make me ashamed in the Day of Judgment.” I personally think Crockett's fame got him trapped at the Alamo, a perspective encouraged by the 2004 film and Thorton's terribly underrated performance..
@dovkrumm773
Жыл бұрын
All a lie 5min in
@harryhorn5282
2 жыл бұрын
It's historically unfair to judge the actions of people from over a 100 years ago by the standards of today. I find it strange how modern historians like to concentrate on anything negative while ignoring anything that puts a positive spin on events of the past. I wonder how historians 150 years from now will view U. S. History as it is now unfolding, assuming there is no global nuclear war killing off every human being.
@kenkaplan3654
Жыл бұрын
The point is not to judge but to see clearly and seaparate myth from reality. Was the Civil war fought over slavery as the origin cause from the South or for "state's rights". People who exhibit bad behavior re not usually good people. Travis and Bowie's recklessness got them all killed. Travis terribly over estimated the possibility of reinforcements before the fort was stormed. Whether there was personal gallantry in the face of death has no relevance to the core undrlying dynamics of why the fight took place. Mexico had outlawed slavery. Britain had outlawed it in 1807. Americans in the South (and in Texas) literally fought to the death to preseve the institution.
@harryhorn5282
Жыл бұрын
@@kenkaplan3654 , It must be kept in mind that not all the Alamo defenders were slave holders from the deep South. Many were from the slave free North, Britain, Ireland, & various other European countries. One thing most of them had in common was a new start in a new land. Land ownership being the ultimate goal......
@kenkaplan3654
Жыл бұрын
@@harryhorn5282 The point is that the overarching issue for Texas was salvery, no matter what certain individuals thought. Was it right to include it originally in the Constitution?
@kenkaplan3654
Жыл бұрын
@@harryhorn5282 The issue here is the myth vs reality. Soldiers in Vietnam fought because they wanted to be there or had to be there. but the *reason* for the war was American imperialistic interests combined with a horribly misguided cold war philosophy applied erroneously to a third world desire for independence.
@kenkaplan3654
Жыл бұрын
@@harryhorn5282 The issue is myth vs reality. There were many reasons for Texas Independence including American Anglo sense of entitlement, culture clashes, revulsion to Excessive ferderalism but above all was the refusal to give up slavery. Sure many of the defenders migt not have been personally invested in it but most had lived with it all their lives, just as Confederate soldiers had lived with it all their lives These were not stupid men politically and their two leaders. Travis and Bowie either owned slaves or trafficked in them so they knew the score. if it was integral for independence, so be it. Texas independence ironically was the first shot in the fight over the westward expansion of slavery that became the irreconcilable issue that led to the Civil war. They were not fighting for free land. Land was essentially free in the territory. Crockett did not come for some high minded motive. He was coldy calculating he could restart his political ambitions. He came to Texas barely one month before the battle and swore allegiance to a provisional government that hardly existed Travis was a reckless ego driven war hawk and Bowie had no common sense. It was Travis more than anyone else whose arrogance got them trapped, who refused orders to abandon the Mission, and who lived under the delusion they would be reinforced. They all so miscalculated Santra Anna so badly they all got drunk as skunks on Washington's BD on the 21 Feb The reason the Alamo was important was not for any strategic reason but because the fact that SA slaughtered them all and all at Goliad, waking them up to the gravity of the situation The proof in the pudding of the emptiness of this myth is Goliad. Twice as many died there. No one talks about it because they surrendered and were massacred in a truly ignominious manner. Not very manly. Besides Fannin who else is known from that? So Goliad which affected everyone as much as the Alamo in terms of SA's startling ferocity gets swept under the rug. "Nothing to see here" Because it does not fit the mythic narrative. Can't have that. Anyway, thank Walt Disney. He's the one who really implanted this in the modern consciousness.
Пікірлер: 17