Thoughts on the Alamo

H

Hornius Emeritus

2,500+ Posts
You know, as I've traveled the backroads of this great state I've had a lot of time to think about a lot of things. In the course of my ruminations I've had pause to ponder that battle for the Alamo, its significance, why it was fought etc... about 17,347 times.


It seems to me that, in some ways at least, perhaps neither side should have fought the battle. Santa Anna had no strategic need to take the fort. It was locaded about 125 miles inland from the gulf coast, San Antonio did not command any indispensable land or water routes etc... Supplies for Santa Anna's army could have come by water or along the coast up from Matamoros.


Having said that, Santa Anna had several "moral" reasons for wanting to attack. One was to avenge the defeat of General Cos and renew the claim for Mexican political control of Texas. And also it showed the Texians that they would pay a price for resisting. But he needn't have attacked. He could have waited a few more days for the siege guns that were en route and that would have reduced the Alamo to rubble without much in the way of Mexican losses. But his ego and his stupidity cost him several hundred of his best soldiers, weakening it.


The defenders had no good strategic reason for defending the Alamo. Neill and Bowie made the initial decision to defend the Alamo just because they thought they could. Then, after they were trapped, basic beliefs of honor and manhood took over. After it became clear that they were not going to get help from outside and that surrender was not an option they basically had the choice of trying to escape or fighting to the end. They started saying to each other "I'll die before I turn yella." So, even though they had no strategic necessity to defend the Alamo, they defended it for reasons perfectly clear to themselves, just as Santa Anna attacked it for reasons perfectly clear to himself.



Having said that, it is also true that the the sacrifice of the men at the Alamo benefitted the Texian cause in several ways. First, the destruction of the Alamo woke up the Texians, especially the older settlers who were not typically in favor of revolution. Second, the story of fighting to the last man stirred imaginations and increased support for the Texian cause in the United States. Third, it weakened Santa Anna's army significantly and provided a rallying cry for Texians for the rest of the war. And, of course, by delaying the Mexican invasion for two+ weeks, the Alamo defenders gave the convention that met on March 1st the time to declare independence and organize a temporary government for Texas.
 
After reading your account it made me think the same thing about MacArthur in the Pacific. I have read a descriptive blow-by-blow account of the war in the Pacific and it seems that the US could have just skipped so many worthless islands and left the Japanese fighters to rot, starve, etc. Instead we invaded all of these little piss ant islands to root out every Japanese and lost thousands of our own men in the process. It must have been MacArthurs ego or bravado.

You think people are upset about our losses in Iraq. We lost that many in a single island campaign in the Pacific time and again. If we had internet and Television then like now there would have been a national uproar.

Anyway, saw some similarties there.
 
It's fairly simple. People go to war for emotional reasons rather than rational ones. There is rarely a rational reason for war unless you are defending yourself -- truly defending yourself.
 
I have a book on myths, lies and legends. It makes some of the same points as HE. But the final point the author made about the Alamo was: If you're going to lose, lose this way. Blaze of glory and all that good stuff.
 
In what wars were the ego's of the brass not involved? Santa Anna thought himself the Napoleon of the West. His diary was named the Eagle. Why did the men at the Alamo wait until it was too late to escape? Why did Fannin (the only West Pointer in the Texian Army) wait until it was too late to fortify the Alamo, only to have his entire garrison slaughtered? Accidentally, Texas won "The War of Mistakes."
 
The most precious comodities for Sam Houston and the provisional government were time, men, and a sense of cause. The Alamo bought all of these. Santa Anna was delayed for 13 days. THose days allowed Houston to train his men and allowed additional volunteers to arrive from the U.S. More importantly, the Alamo provided a motivation for Houston's soldiers that led to victory at San Jacinto. The Alamo helped define what it meant to fight and die for Texas. It still does.

God bless Texas.

texasflag.gif
 
I went there recently, my father-in-law from Maryland was visiting. I was moved, as always, by reading Travis' letter.
It is ironic how soldiers become heroes, which is often due to their death. Some perform unbelievable acts of courage, like charging machine gun nests, some just happen to be in the wrong spot and get picked off by a sniper or hit by a shell, others may haplessly cross a field or road and step on a mine. The combatants at the Alamo were a combination of all of these types, but they captured the imagination of Texas, the United States and the world by sacrificing their lives for a cause they believed in. It is right to honor their memory.
 
I will admit to having less than stellar knowledge of the battle. I have a yankee buddy that all he can say about the alamo was that 'the guys in it were mostly crooks and criminals and had no where else to go' due to hearing that in a Tx history class. Since I don't have enough concrete knowledge to back up an argument, I just tell him to f off.
texasflag.gif
 
The entire Revolution defies explanation from a military history standpoint. You're absolutely right that the Battle of the Alamo had not military necessity.

It seems as though none of the lessons learned during the Napoleonic Wars were put into action in the Texas Revolution. From a strategic standpoint, Napoleon learned in the Peninsular War not to provoke total war with an occupied population by committing mass reprisals. But that's precisely what Santa Anna did. Napoleon learned in Moscow that capturing the enemy's capital would not necessarily end a war, yet that's what Santa Anna seemingly thought. The "Napoleon of the West" therefore made some of the same mistakes as the original.

But at the same time, he didn't use any of Napoleon's military genius. Combined arms were shunned, as evidenced by Santa Anna's refusal to wait for the seige guns at the Alamo. Dragoons were cut loose without infantry support, and artillary was rarely used effectively. Worst of all, there were none of the sweeping movements of a Napoleonic army. One such movement could have cut off Houston's army from Louisiana and effectively destroyed the uprising.

The Texas Revolution was a mess of a war--less a boxing match than a street fight. But what street fighters lack in tactical saavy, they make up for in guts and toughness. And there's something to be said for that.
 
Texas had very little in the way of an army.

They had the Alamo (~200 men), a garrison at Goliad (~350 men) and Sam Houston trying to find anyone and everyone to take arms (a loose collection of maybe 1000 other men). That was pretty much it.

Santa Anna thought he could take out the Alamo and Fannin's troops at Goliad in a fast and bloody way, cutting off Sam Houston's efforts to raise a real Army. He also thought that a showing of how strong he was would also decrease the chance of the US getting involved in a conflict.

Of course at the time he didn't know he was messing with Texas and that is never a good idea
texasflag.gif
 
I have heard (or read) that the few cannons at the Alamo represented the biggest concentration of artillery that existed in Texas at the time, and were the main incentive for defending the mission. That said, I think Travis believed that he would get reinforcements; and when that reality did not come to pass, he was stuck.

In hindsight, far better to die standing up at the Alamo, than executed at Goliad (although I have read some historical studies suggesting that a handful of fighters, including Crockett, survived the main battle only to be executed by firing squad the next morning.

All in all, a remarkable piece of history.
 
Santa Anna's biggest mistake was going to Texas himself. When he got captured, he had no choice but to grant the Texians what they wanted. Had it been a general and not the de facto Mexican ruler, it would have been a setback for Mexico, but they still could have easily won the war. It would be like Bush going to Iraq and commanding the troops himself. All it would take is for one thing to go wrong and the whole damn thing would be lost.
 
Coelocanth,

How many decisions made in war are rational? I agree that Travis probably had no assurance that those 13 days would buy Houston the time he needed to build an army. I do think though, for entirely subjective reasons, that Travis sensed that this battle was somehow right and necessary. Maybe heroism isn't rational. Risking one's life for an abstraction may nearly always be questionable in the cold light of history.

"The Alamo was fought over slavery, the Texans wanted it and Mexico dident want it."

RabidHorn, your analysis may be a bit simplistic.

God bless Texas!

texasflag.gif
 
"By the early 1800s, a lot of people living in San Antonio were farmers who brought their slaves with them. In 1829, Mexico abolished slavery and what followed was years of conflict between farmers who wanted to keep their slaves and Mexican authorities. This conflict led up to the battle for the Alamo"
 
Sorry, but, again, that is entirely wrong. What is the source of that commentary?


And, not to split hairs, but that comment is different from what you originally wrote. Very few of the men who fought it, if any, thought they were fighting for slavery. And Santa Anna didn't fight it over slavery, either.
 
Well, I just did Google it.

The source is a Nickelodeon special, in which a teenage Hispanic girl walks in front of the Alamo. Her name is Salviola, and she says:



" My name is Salviola. I'm from San Antonio, Texas, and the Alamo is in my backyard.

In 1718, the mission of San Antonio de la Valero was established. The church structure is still standing today and it is known as the Alamo.

The battle for the Alamo is often remembered as a rebellion of a small group of brave Texas farmers fighting against the Mexican army. What you may not know is that at the time, Texas was part of Mexico.

By the early 1800s, a lot of people living in San Antonio were farmers who brought their slaves with them. In 1829, Mexico abolished slavery and what followed was years of conflict between farmers who wanted to keep their slaves and Mexican authorities. This conflict led up to the battle for the Alamo."



So there it is. Your source is a teenage hispanic girl named Salviola from San Antonio.


Sorry to inform Salviola, but that is historical revisionism.
 
Allsome! Rabid have you been getting your history from Nickelodeon?
yippee.gif


Just screwing with you man, I might have better luck getting my financial advice from BET rap videos than on my own.
 
Keep reading other sites same say the same thing. I am a Texas and love the Alamo story but dont close your mind to other reasons other than the John Wayne version.
 
Look, her statement was nonsense revisionism and it sort of pisses me off that Nickelodeon is passing this PC crap off to our kids. I hope this isn't what they are learning in schools.

On the surface, it seems believable that the cause of the insurrection was slavery, especially if you consider the fact that the Mexican government had regularly talked about abolishing slavery over the years and the resulting victory by the Texians at San Jacinto cemented slavery as an institution in Texas.

But look at the actual facts. Slavery was not a major issue in any of the events from 1830-1835. It played no important part in the disturbance at Anahuac in 1832 or the sequence of happenings that lead to the fighting in 1835, and Mexico took no action (other than talk) to threaten it during those years. Slavery was a difference that separated Texas and Mexico but it was not THE cause of rebellion.


And her statement is wrong in other ways, too.

First off, the population of San Antonio at that time was overwhelmingly Tejanos who had no history of slave ownership. Secondly, almost the entirety of the economy around San Antonio then was based on ranching, not farming ---- just as it is today. It's too dry in San Antonio to farm. This is a huge distinction because, if you look at where slavery occurred in Texas before the revolution, it was almost exclusively in East Texas along the lower Brazos and Colorado rivers, where it rains enough to grow cotton and other crops in a very small, concentrated, agriculturally "dense" area. When average annual rainfall drops to a certain level, slavery becomes economically unviable. San Antonio is prone to droughts, any one of which would put a slaveowner out of business. Not only that, but if you've ever been there you know that the soil is pretty rocky and barren and hard to work.



Then there is this: it's true that, in Sept. 1829, Mexico abolished slavery. But on Dec 2nd, President Guerrero exempted Texas from this abolition.

Also, very few of the 189 men who died at the Alamo were from San Antonio, or even Texas for that matter: only six were born in Texas. A lot were from Tennessee, Kentucky, and the Carolinas, but quite a few were from New York, Ohio, Pennyslvania, and Europe. It was truly a multi-racial, multi-ethnic force comprised of foreigners. Very few of them owned slaves.


In my mind, the rebellion came about in the same way a fire comes about: there was dry tinder and there was a spark.

The "dry tinder" was the fact that Texas was a place in which Anglo Americans populated a Mexican province. Because they were concentrated much closer to their homeland (and because they spoke the language of their homeland) than they were to Mexico City, they maintained a cultural and ethnic identity that had no loyalty to Mexico. On top of that, the leaders of the province came to believe that the central government in Mexico did not listen to them or support their interests. The spark was provided when Santa Anna made a move towards centralization of power and General Cos demanded that Texans subject themselves to that power and accept military occupation. Because they lost a lot of local control, the Texians --- with the support of many Tejanos --- rebelled.
 
The lie that the Revolution was caused by slavery was first propogated in Nicholas Malliard's 1842 "History of the Republic of Texas," in which he characterized Texas as "filled with habitual liars, drunkards, blasphemers, and slanderers; sanguinary gamesters and cold-blooded assassins; with idleness and sluggish indolence (two vices for which the Texans are already proverbial); with pride, engendered by ignorance and supported by fraud," and argued that his native Britain should not recognize Texan independence on anti-slavery grounds. Malliard's screed was not history in any meaningful way--it was a polemic aimed at preventing the annexation of another slave state. And there is no legitimate historian today who would claim that slavery was a primary cause of the Revolution.

As to the military history of the issue:

[
In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top