Would you have given up the Alamo?

[Guaranteed]

Poll question: Would you have given up the Alamo?

[whyverne]

1. Why Texans drive me nuts.

They had no legal right to be there and they were outnumbered thousands to one. That's not bravery, that's dumb.

[El Supremo]

6. Santa Anna had no legal right...

to throw away the Mexican Constitution.
:wtf:

[SemiCharmedQuark]

17. Oh please. It would have been just another uprising if the U.S. hadn't

wanted Texas for itself.

[despairing optimist]

2. Considering what's been coming out of Texas lately, hell yes

I'd have gotten Bill Moyers and Molly Ivins out before surrendering, though. ;-)

[Guaranteed]

4. And it's spreading across the U.S., now.

May not be worth it, eh?

[despairing optimist]

7. Hate the barbecuers, not the barbecue

Make me chaste, O Lord, but not yet.

[Guaranteed]

14. Disagree. Hate the barbecuers in lieu of the barbecue. nt

[El Supremo]

3. What do you mean?

That Travis and all should have abandoned it? Don't you realize that because of the damage they did to Santa Anna time was bought for Houston to organize his army. And some fantastic luck at San Jacinto.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

9. Actually, that is not true.

http://www.thealamo.org/myths.html

[SemiCharmedQuark]

5. Considering the whole thing was an illegal imperical grab for land...

Yes, yes I would have.

[El Supremo]

8. You are confusing...

the Texas War for Independence with the Mexican War.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

16. No...

The depression in 1819 resulted in many Americans going over the border to settle Mexico. Guess what they based their economy on? Oh right, cotton and of course slavery! In the early 1820s, Mexico declares an end to slavery, but its still practiced all over the country, including in the new colony. By the way, the colonists had agreed to speciic rules before they lived there. Constintution of 1824 and Mexico bans slavery again. Anywho, back in Texas, illegal and legal American immigrants were flooding into Texas. The american presence there groes. Anyway, come 1827 and Adams offers 1 million dollars to buy Texas. Mexico turned him down flat. Later Jefferson tries for 5 million and is again turned down. Mexico now sees the writing on the wall and realizes that the U.S. wants Texas. More and more americans are settling there. So Mexico tried to enforce laws banning those setlements that had not been set up yet.

Meanwhile, the american settlers are getting annoyed about tariffs, corruption and the hold on slavery. Anyway, Santa Anna declaresa a dictatorship and Texas moves to become an independent state. More and more American immigrants come into Texas and Santa Anna correctly surmises that the U.S. is encouraging them to do so in a bid to take over Texas.

So it really goes hand in hand with the Mexican American war. Had the U.S. not really wanted Texas, the war would not be glorified and Texas might not have even won it. Anyway, once it WAS won, it was used as a gateway to gain even more land from Mexico.

[okasha]

35. The battle of the Alamo was part of a larger conflict

between two Mexican factions, the Centrists and the Federalists. The Alamo garrison fought in defense of the 1824 Constitution--the one that abolished slavery.

[NoPasaran]

28. Damn those impericals!

Whoever they were!

[Redstone]

10. Fuck, yes.

No reason to be stupid.

As General Patton said, "It's not your job to give up your life for your country; it's your job to make the other son of a bitch give up his life for HIS country."

Or words to that effect.

And furthermore, there's that famous, inspirational, and eminently sensible saying: "He who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day."

Redstone

[Jersey Devil]

11. Are you saying all Dems should fall on their swords over Roberts?

Don't you understand that the Repubs are baiting the Dems into opposing them so they can make the Dems look like the party that stands for nothing and opposes everything?

Unless there is some dirt on Roberts we don't know about that surfaces during the hearings the Dems will look stupid opposing him.

[kevsand]

12. Isn't that what they actually did?

Wasn't there a conscious decision not to send reinforcements? Do I have that wrong?

[Guaranteed]

13. They didn't SURRENDER

for the sake of saving their hides.

[kevsand]

21. I see.

So the guys in charge gave it up, but the guys actually IN the Alamo didn't, obviously. They probably should have. As far as I can tell, they didn't accomplish much. Did the rallying cry win the war? Probably not. Is it worth being killed just to have your names remembered 150 years later? Probably not. Did they feel like they had any real choice? Probably not.

Bottom line: there is no such thing as a moral victory in war.

[alarimer]

29. They would have died anyway

The MO of the Mexican commanders was no quarter given. After all they killed all those men in Goliad AFTER they had surrendered. So why not take a few with them and buy some time?

[kevsand]

32. The point is,

they had a chance to leave before Santa Anna got there. Probably should've taken it.

[Guaranteed]

34. Brilliant point. nt

[libhill]

30. Actually

those guys were caught between the proverbial "rock and hard place". Santa Anna told them to surrender "at discretion", meaning his own discretion. Meaning he'd have killed them all any way. Regardless of the rights or wrongs of the rebellion, Santa Anna did have a reputation as a butcher. So, by holding out, the defenders actually extended their lives, for a while anyway. The only smart man there was Moses Rose, a Napoleonic Wars vet who went over the wall when Travis drew his line in the sand. He supposedly commented later, that he didn't survive the Retreat from Moscow and the Battle of Waterloo just to "die in a desert". Who can blame him?

[Zomby Woof]

22. But the defenders got their asses slaughtered

So I am not fond of the analogy. I know you mean well, but the analogy is horrible. It's rather romanticized - fighting 'til the last one falls, etc.

I would rather PREVAIL. Surely we have a better analogy for an uphill fight.

[Spider Jerusalem]

25. How about Thermopylae?

[libhill]

31. We do

Rourke's Drift, 1879. A handful of Brit soldiers from the Welsh Fusiliers, fought off thousands of Zulus for a day and a night, by forting up in - guess what - a run down mission station protected by sand bags. Not unlike the Alamo, in terms of odds and having to defend a ramshackle fort. And, yes, the Zulu War was an imperialist war, but you have to admire the bravery on both sides, despite it all.

[mondo joe]

15. What the hell would I be doing at the Alamo?

[Spider Jerusalem]

18. Well, yeah.

I wouldn't have been there in the first place. Can't really get behind the idea of pro-slavery imperialism, sorry.

[libhill]

19. No

but, I would have gone over the wall, had I been given the chance. Allegedly, Travis drew his little line in the sand, and stated that anyone who wanted to leave was free to do so. So, if I was in that situation, and could leave without being ostracized, I'd be outta there. The place wasn't in shape to be defended, and we had no right to steal land from Mexico at any rate. I don't recall that Mexico or Santa Anna ever threatened the U.S.

[Placebo]

20. I think the Alamo should be turned into a Texaco station.

But that's just me.

[kevsand]

24. "You can trust your car

to the man who wears the star."

[Placebo]

26. You said it!

:patriot:

[Smarty Pants Liberal]

33. That would be like turning Holy Name Cathedral into a Texaco station

Mission San Antonio de Valero, aka the Alamo was established in 1718. There's much more history behind the mission than the 13 days in 1836.

[Yupster]

23. I would have followed my orders.

I would have removed or more likely spiked the cannons and gotten out of there like the orders said.

I understand the reluctance to abandon the canons which were the best and most the Texicans had, but the orders were to demolish and retreat so that's what I would have done.

That probably would have saved the lives of the garrisons at Goliad and Gonzales too besides the garrison at Bexar.

[alarimer]

27. No because they would have died anyway

Remember Goliad? The Mexicans SHOT 300 men that had surrender. Those at the Alamo would have fared no better. So they had nothing to lose and hopefully they killed a few while they were at it.