**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.
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!
**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.