Can I Have A Mass Said for American Heroes?


#1

Can I Have A Mass Said for American Heroes?

[LEFT]Can I have a Mass said for all those brave men who died at the Alamo on March 6, 1936. They fought against the evil ones from Mexico and died to prove that real Americans would rather die than to submit to evil. They are heroes that should be recognized for their valor.[/LEFT]

[LEFT]Here is one of the most famous letters in American history:[/LEFT]

To The People of Texas and
All Americans In The World –

February 24, 1836

***Fellow citizens & compatriots – ***

I am besieged, by a thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Anna – I have sustained a continual Bombardment & cannonade for 24 hours & have not lost a man – The enemy has demanded a surrender at discretion, otherwise, the garrison are to be put to the sword, if the fort is taken – I have answered the demand with a cannon shot, & our flag still waves proudly from the walls –

***I shall never surrender or retreat. ***

***Then, I call on you in the name of Liberty, of patriotism, & every thing dear to the American character, to come to our aid, with all dispatch – The enemy is receiving reinforcements daily & will no doubt increase to three or four thousand in four or five days. If this call is neglected, I am determined to sustain myself as long as possible & die like a soldier who never forgets what is due to his own honor & that of his country – ***

***VICTORY OR DEATH ***

William Barret Travis
***Lt. Col. Comdt. ***


#2

You can have a mass said for anyone you want.

The Alamo was in 1836, not 1936. Probably a typo on your part.

These men are not American heroes, they are Texian heroes. Those involved in the Alamo were fighting for Texas independence, not for America. And, your view of the Mexican government of the time is quite skewed. The Mexicans were not “evil.” Speaking in hyperbole is not productive.

Texas was a Republic from 1836-1846.


#3

I can’t read the phrase “American hero” without thinking of G.I. Joe. He’s a real American hero.


#4

If Generalisimo Santa Ana wasn’t evil, I wish you could point to someone in that time period who would deserved that title more than him.

The defenders of the Alamo are American heroes. Just because Americans die in foreign lands does not devalue what they did or who they are. Most Americans who have died in battle in foreign lands are buried in foreign lands.

abmc.gov/cemeteries/cemeteries.php

Many “politically correct” versions of the Battle of the Alamo are used today in an attempt to make certain immigrant groups feel good. Some make the defenders of the fort look evil and the Mexicans look like saints. I suggest taking a look at the 2 hour History Channel version for a more authoritative opinion.

%between%


#5

Slaveholders.

The defenders of the Alamo are American heroes. Just because Americans die in foreign lands does not devalue what they did or who they are. Most Americans who have died in battle in foreign lands are buried in foreign lands.

What makes them Americans? They agreed to Mexican government to be allowed to immigrate to Mexico, and they were fighting for independence, not annexation. It was years before they even became a part of the United States.

abmc.gov/cemeteries/cemeteries.php

Many “politically correct” versions of the Battle of the Alamo are used today in an attempt to make certain immigrant groups feel good. Some make the defenders of the fort look evil and the Mexicans look like saints. I suggest taking a look at the 2 hour History Channel version for a more authoritative opinion.

%between%

Never go to the History Channel for an authoritative source. Go to the library and get a good book. It needs to be acknowledged that the Texan Revolution was more complicated than “American Freedom!”. We need to acknowledge the corruption and despotism of the Santa Ana government, but also the complexities of the war. Also, the over-emphasis on the Alamo diminishes unfairly the importance of the real hero of the war, Sam Houston.


#6

Quote:
**Originally Posted by apriori **http://forums.catholic.com/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
If Generalisimo Santa Ana wasn’t evil, I wish you could point to someone in that time period who would deserved that title more than him.

Slaveholders.

The “politically correct” historians have for years looked down on the heroes of the Alamo as a bunch of land stealing, slaveholding, rednecks. The Mexican claim that they didn’t want Americans bringing their slaves to Texas is not as virtuous as many think. They didn’t want Africans to interbreed with their Mexican pesant class. As if they didn’t interbreed with every other race!


Quote:
**The defenders of the Alamo are American heroes. Just because Americans die in foreign lands does not devalue what they did or who they are. Most Americans who have died in battle in foreign lands are buried in foreign lands. **

What makes them Americans? They agreed to Mexican government to be allowed to immigrate to Mexico, and they were fighting for independence, not annexation. It was years before they even became a part of the United States.

I might go to another country to live out the rest of my life but I don’t have to give up my right to be an American. The majority of those who went to Texas were “dyed in the wool” Americans. That was the real reason for trying to kick them out. The Mexican government began to regret advertising for settlers to fill up Texas and keep the Indian raids out of Mexico.


Many “politically correct” versions of the Battle of the Alamo are used today in an attempt to make certain immigrant groups feel good. Some make the defenders of the fort look evil and the Mexicans look like saints. I suggest taking a look at the 2 hour History Channel version for a more authoritative opinion.

Never go to the History Channel for an authoritative source. Go to the library and get a good book. It needs to be acknowledged that the Texan Revolution was more complicated than “American Freedom!”. We need to acknowledge the corruption and despotism of the Santa Ana government, but also the complexities of the war. Also, the over-emphasis on the Alamo diminishes unfairly the importance of the real hero of the war, Sam Houston.

I see no reason to condemn the History Channel. One program like the Alamo might contain the knowledge of 20 or more historians while a book will contain much less. The program rails against Sam Houston for hanging out at “Washington on the Brazos” while the Alamo was under seige. The people there had to force Houston to go to the aid of his fellow countrymen.

Houston may have won the war but if it wasn’t for the Mexican Army butchering those few survivors of the Alamo who had surrendered, like those of Fannin who also surrendered near Goliad, would Houston’s volunteer army have behaved like “avenging angels”.

To quote one of Houston’s soldier’s, “If Jesus Christ Himself came down to tell me to stop killing Mexicans, I wouldn’t do it!” That shows the frame of mind of the avengers. That is why an outnumbered force of Americans were able to defeat Santa Ana’s much larger army at San Jacinto. Not necessarily Sam Houston who historians, to this day, cannot understand why he retreated so far into Texas to finally do battle with the Mexican Army.


#7

I didn’t care whether the Texans were slaveholders or not, but slaveholders were certainly “more evil” than Santa Ana, as you put it.

I might go to another country to live out the rest of my life but I don’t have to give up my right to be an American. The majority of those who went to Texas were “dyed in the wool” Americans. That was the real reason for trying to kick them out. The Mexican government began to regret advertising for settlers to fill up Texas and keep the Indian raids out of Mexico.

That’s right. They were being kicked for not holding up their end of the bargain, which was becoming Catholic and renouncing their American citizenship. Instead, they moved to Mexico, became Mexican citizens, and began plotting to have territory that belonged to Mexico become a part of the United States. Many of them were…and I know you’ll hate this…illegal immigrants.

In order to move to Texas, they were supposed to sop being Americans; that was the deal that Stephen F. Austin agreed to.

I see no reason to condemn the History Channel. One program like the Alamo might contain the knowledge of 20 or more historians while a book will contain much less. The program rails against Sam Houston for hanging out at “Washington on the Brazos” while the Alamo was under seige. The people there had to force Houston to go to the aid of his fellow countrymen.

The History Channel is pop history, and doesn’t represent the top scholarship available. You can’t even see their sources. A book, on the other hand, will give you actual history, with good scholarship. For historical accuracy, the History Channel is almost a joke.

Secondly, Houston’s wisdom was resisting the urge of rushing to the Alamo. Had he tried to lift the siege, he surely would have been routed. He had the courage to make the hard decision that a commander has to make, and wait.

Historians know exactly why Sam Houston retreated so far into Texas: he was letting the Mexican Army tire itself out, and he was waiting for an opening. The opening he found at San Jacinto was perfect, and he attacked. Ultimately, the Alamo’s greatest contribution was buying time for Houston, not inspiring the troops. Although they went into battle shouting “Remember the Alamo!” , they would have prevailed at San Jacinto shouting “Subs for lunch!” The Mexican Army was asleep, and the Texans routed them in eighteen minutes; had the fight been a slugfest, that extra motivation would have made a difference, but the Mexican Army was caught off guard and never had a chance to fight back.


#8

Quote:
Originally Posted by apriori
The “politically correct” historians have for years looked down on the heroes of the Alamo as a bunch of land stealing, slaveholding, rednecks. The Mexican claim that they didn’t want Americans bringing their slaves to Texas is not as virtuous as many think. They didn’t want Africans to interbreed with their Mexican pesant class. As if they didn’t interbreed with every other race!

I didn’t care whether the Texans were slaveholders or not, but slaveholders were certainly “more evil” than Santa Ana, as you put it.

Slaveholders are more evil than dictators who enslave their own country? So Hitler, Stalin, and others aren’t as bad as those who carried out the orders. I fail to see the logic in your statement.

Quote:
I might go to another country to live out the rest of my life but I don’t have to give up my right to be an American. The majority of those who went to Texas were “dyed in the wool” Americans. That was the real reason for trying to kick them out. The Mexican government began to regret advertising for settlers to fill up Texas and keep the Indian raids out of Mexico.

That’s right. They were being kicked for not holding up their end of the bargain, which was becoming Catholic and renouncing their American citizenship. Instead, they moved to Mexico, became Mexican citizens, and began plotting to have territory that belonged to Mexico become a part of the United States. Many of them were…and I know you’ll hate this…illegal immigrants.

In order to move to Texas, they were supposed to sop being Americans; that was the deal that Stephen F. Austin agreed to.

**The Mexican government offered land to anyone who was willing to settle in the Texas region. They didn’t put a lot of conditions on that deal, but they made all sorts of promises to the settlers to lure them to Texas. Controlling their own destiny with representation in a government was one of them. Austin was the one who spread the word about what the Mexican government was offering. The biggest draw for the settlers was that the Mexican government would keep its nose out of the affairs of the settlers. Why would anyone leave a free America to go to an be enslaved in Mexico? Again, where the logic? **


#9

[FONT=Verdana]Quote:
I see no reason to condemn the History Channel. One program like the Alamo might contain the knowledge of 20 or more historians while a book will contain much less. The program rails against Sam Houston for hanging out at “Washington on the Brazos” while the Alamo was under seige. The people there had to force Houston to go to the aid of his fellow countrymen
[/FONT]

.

The History Channel is pop history, and doesn’t represent the top scholarship available. You can’t even see their sources. A book, on the other hand, will give you actual history, with good scholarship. For historical accuracy, the History Channel is almost a joke.

Secondly, Houston’s wisdom was resisting the urge of rushing to the Alamo. Had he tried to lift the siege, he surely would have been routed. He had the courage to make the hard decision that a commander has to make, and wait.

The History Channel is as good as any source as long as there are historians from reputable universities on the show to back up the information. I guess if it’s popular history, that makes it to television, then it must be false. Tell that to Ken Burns. He must have made up everything on his “The Civil War” according to your logic.

Houston kept a chair warm at Washington on the Brazos because he wanted to be part of the government of Texas and if he had left to save the Alamo, he felt that someone would get his job. He was a politician. His greater claim to fame was trying to keep Texas from seceding during the American Civil War.

Houston** actions have been exaggerated over the years like the amount of Mexicans Jim Bowie killed while lying in his sick bed during the battle of the Alamo. **


#10

Houston may have won the war but if it wasn’t for the Mexican Army butchering those few survivors of the Alamo who had surrendered, like those of Fannin who also surrendered near Goliad, would Houston’s volunteer army have behaved like “avenging angels”.
To quote one of Houston’s soldier’s, “If Jesus Christ Himself came down to tell me to stop killing Mexicans, I wouldn’t do it!” That shows the frame of mind of the avengers. That is why an outnumbered force of Americans were able to defeat Santa Ana’s much larger army at San Jacinto. Not necessarily Sam Houston who historians, to this day, cannot understand why he retreated so far into Texas to finally do battle with the Mexican Army

Historians know exactly why Sam Houston retreated so far into Texas: he was letting the Mexican Army tire itself out, and he was waiting for an opening. The opening he found at San Jacinto was perfect, and he attacked. Ultimately, the Alamo’s greatest contribution was buying time for Houston, not inspiring the troops. Although they went into battle shouting “Remember the Alamo!” , they would have prevailed at San Jacinto shouting “Subs for lunch!” The Mexican Army was asleep, and the Texans routed them in eighteen minutes; had the fight been a slugfest, that extra motivation would have made a difference, but the Mexican Army was caught off guard and never had a chance to fight back.

If you study human nature, you’ll know what an enraged mob can do to even the best trained soldiers. Look at the riots that took place in the 60s. Look at what the “Rebel Yell” did for Stonewall Jackson’s troops. That was pure rage. One enraged American is worth 10 Mexican soldiers. I suggest you do more reading.


#11

wow, this thread turns into history one. :slight_smile:
Maybe we just pray for all souls whether they were doing something evil or heroic. If they are in the Purgatory, they would say …“please hurry, have a mass for me”.


#12
  1. Santa Ana was an average ruler for his time. Most of the world was ruled by dictators at the time, and its ridiculous to compare him to Hitler or Stalin. He threw out Mexico’s Constitution; most of Europe didn’t even have a constitution. Sure, he was not an elected president, but he wasn’t Hitler or Stalin. If he was one of the most evil person in the world, so were all the kings in Europe, who were putting down similar rebellions across the continent at the time.

  2. Slaveholders are dictators.

**The Mexican government offered land to anyone who was willing to settle in the **Texas region. They didn’t put a lot of conditions on that deal, but they made all sorts of promises to the settlers to lure them to Texas. Controlling their own destiny with representation in a government was one of them. Austin was the one who spread the word about what the Mexican government was offering. The biggest draw for the settlers was that the Mexican government would keep its nose out of the affairs of the settlers. Why would anyone leave a free America to go to an be enslaved in Mexico? Again, where the logic?

Because it was cheap land where slavery was legal, and because they were filibustering from the very beginning. They were required to become Mexican citizens, and they were required to become Catholics. Austin spread the word, but the conditions didn’t change. The settlers made lots of promises to the Mexicans, who were very leery of the deal from the beginning.

Look up your history before you start talking about it; the settlers were most definitely required to become Mexicans and Catholics.


#13

The History Channel is as good as any source as long as there are historians from reputable universities on the show to back up the information. I guess if it’s popular history, that makes it to television, then it must be false. Tell that to Ken Burns. He must have made up everything on his “The Civil War” according to your logic.

The Civil War aired on PBS, not on the History Channel. In fact, Burns’s documentary is older than the History Channel.

Besides, was this the documentary that was released to accompany the movie that came out a few years ago? I’ve seen that documentary, and I don’t believe that supported what you’re claiming here.

Houston kept a chair warm at Washington on the Brazos because he wanted to be part of the government of Texas and if he had left to save the Alamo, he felt that someone would get his job. He was a politician. His greater claim to fame was trying to keep Texas from seceding during the American Civil War.

That’s not even true! Houston held back on the Brazos because he needed to train and gather the army. I agree with you that his efforts during the pre-Civil War era were the high point of his career, but he didn’t go to the Alamo because if he did, we’d be talking about the Mexican province of Tejas.

Houston actions have been exaggerated over the years like the amount of Mexicans Jim Bowie killed while lying in his sick bed during the battle of the Alamo.

So has the Alamo. It was more valuable as a delaying action than as a symbol, and if Sam Houston had rushed to its defense, that value as a delaying action would have been totally negated.


#14

If you study human nature, you’ll know what an enraged mob can do to even the best trained soldiers. Look at the riots that took place in the 60s. Look at what the “Rebel Yell” did for Stonewall Jackson’s troops. That was pure rage. One enraged American is worth 10 Mexican soldiers. I suggest you do more reading.

What? The Rebel Yell was common to the Army of the Northern Virginia in general, and it is vastly overrated (in fact, none of the primary sources discuss it happening in the Shenandoah, where Jackson made his name; it probably came from Hood’s Texas Brigade). It did the Confederates no good at Malvern Hill, or most famously Pickett’s Charge. Chancellorsville worked because it was a surprise attack, not because it was accompanied by the Rebel Yell.

One enraged American being worth ten Mexican soldiers isn’t true, either; San Jacinto didn’t work because the Americans were angry, it worked because the Mexicans were asleep and the Americans overran their camp before the Texans realized what was happening. That’s like saying that Washington won at Trenton because Tom Paine wrote the crisis.


#15

#16

#17

The San Jacinto battle worked because of the over confidence of Santa Ana, the rage of the avenging Americans, and the incompetance of the officers who should have posted sentrys. The Mexicans were unexperienced at fighting foreigners too. That was brought up in the documentary. They didn’t know what to expect.


#18

#19

#20

That’s correct, but Texan rage alone would not have been able to win the battle. Righteous anger never withstood an artillery bombardment, and Sam Houston was a smart enough man to recognize that his army could not have won a battle against the professional army of the Mexicans without something extra on his side. In this case, it was the fact that they were all asleep.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.