Posted on 03/15/2004 4:01:23 AM PST by aardvark1
REMEMBER THE ALAMO
"I am beseiged. The enemy has demanded surrender at discretion...I call on you in the name of liberty, of patriotism, and everything dear to the American character, to come to our aid...If this call is neglected, I am determined to sustain myself as long as possible and die like a soldier who never forgets what is due his honor and that of his country."
These are the words of William B. Travis, who commanded the Alamo when Texas rebelled against Mexico's despot, Santa Anna.
March 6 was the 168th anniversary of the Alamo's fall, which cost Travis his life, along with almost 180 others who went down fighting on freedom's behalf.
That, at least, is how America once viewed the Texas Revolution, which ultimately led to Texas winning its independence from Mexico.
In recent decades, this explanation has been challenged by another revolution. Starting in the late 1960s, a "counterculture" emerged from the fever swamps of the hard Left and began its long march through our civilization, leaving nothing untouched.
Not even the Alamo.
Next month, a new movie about the Alamo will likely reach a theater near you. If it embraces the counterculture's critique, watch out: Travis, Davy Crockett, Jim Bowie and their other heroic friends may well be tarred and feathered with crackpot revisionism.
The Left's critique goes something like this:
The Texas Revolution was a devious scheme hatched by Washington to snatch the future Lone Star State from the Mexicans. Moreover, critics claim, even if it weren't, it couldn't possibly have been about freedom, since Texans were for slavery. According to this view, the Revolution was a racist struggle by whites who chafed under Mexican authority.
This critique is wrong on all counts.
Travis' famous words were indeed a plea for help from America. But that help never came. As the whole world watched, neither Congress nor President Andrew Jackson lifted a finger. As for the Texans, though they declared independence later, they initially fought only for their rights under Mexico's U.S.-style constitution of 1824, a constitution which the dictator Santa Anna had shredded.
As for alleged racism as a motive, why were so many of the Alamo's defenders themselves native-born Mexicans? And why did Mexican pro-democracy author, publisher, diplomat and politician Lorenzo de Zavala join the Texan cause as its first Vice President, leaving behind a lifelong career in Mexico and Spain?
As for slavery, even raising the argument misses the point. Slavery remained legal at the time across most of the world, including the United States itself, both North and South. Moreover, despite the unique evil of race-based slavery in the Americas, throughout time slavery cut across all racial lines. Just this week, The Washington Times reported on a new study from Ohio State University describing African Muslim slave raids into Europe down almost to the time of the Alamo, capturing at least a million white Europeans and denuding coastal towns as far north as Iceland. It is no marvel that 1836-era Texans -- or Mexicans, or Algerians, or Ibo owned slaves: the shock remains that, by the end of that century, slavery had been all but eradicated from the Earth.
In this same vein, the revisionists ignore how many of the Alamo defenders hailed from other states and even other nations. Why would they join Travis in the first place? To defend slavery? Hardly.
No, the Texas Volunteers -- whatever their human flaws -- fought for freedom. They fought against a wanton, authoritarian regime far richer and far more powerful than they. And their wisdom speaks for itself: one hardly need travel to Mexico to see the disaster the century and a half of socialism and one-party rule since Santa Anna has wrought upon that resource rich land and its proud, hard-working people. One need only visit the endless stream of Mexicans coming to gleaming modern Texas to grasp the point that liberty matters, that freedom works.
Gripped by their loathing of our civilization, academia's tenured radicals can't bear this truth. By debunking past heroism, they hope to cut off our culture from what inspires and sustains it. By rewriting the past, they hope to hijack the future -- and remake America.
The new Alamo movie's director is "Happy Days" and "Andy Griffith's" Ron Howard. Let's hope that in the making of the movie, this icon of Americana hasn't surrendered to its harshest foes.
Let's hope he remembers the Alamo -- the real story, of one of the most pivotal moments in all history.
Copyright: Rod D. Martin, 12 March 2004.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
He's one of the producers, not the director.
The director is John Lee Hancock, producers are Mark Johnson and Ron Howard.
The problem with that end to the "awkward period" is that we could end up with Lew Rockwell followers in charge. Here's acomment from Ms. Wolfe's blog:
It doesn't matter a damn whether it's flying planes into the Pentagon or dropping bombs from planes onto Afghani children. Doesn't matter a damn whether it's blowing up trains and office buildings or whacking the arms and legs off little Iraqi boys. It's all done by people who think something else in this world trumps the rights, and the value, of individuals.She's calmly equating our war on terror with the WTC attacks. She also tries to suggest that strategic weapons are off limits in the terror war. She all but apologizes for our use of atomic weapons and incindiary bombs against civilians during WWII. Elsewhere she links to a sneaky Lew Rockwell site article that blasts President Bush's bipartisanship, as well.
What we see here is the best argument I can find for winning back our country with the pen so that we don't have to use the sword.
I'm for extending this "awkward period" by reelecting President Bush, swinging the pendulum back away from the breaking point. It's not too late to focus the attention of Congress on America's First Freedom. It's not too late to stop the abuse of the word "marriage." It's not too late to keep cutting taxes and fighting the war on terror.
Keep your powder dry, but vote Republican. And lobby any polititican who will listen. We have to save the Republic democratically before we end up having to fend off a bunch of anti-semitic nutcases on the right, as well as black flag waving anarchists and communists on the left.
These days, they're speaking the same language.
Yep. And some of those on board are still asleep.
The cities of Houston and Austin have a lot in common with their namesakes. Austin was built in the interior to push the Indians back, and to this day considers itself morally superior. Austin (like Washington DC) considers itself to be the most important city-- the leader of the land. Houston actually gets the work done. It pays the bills, and is so powerful it supplies energy to the world (literally). Yet Houston is the butt of jokes, is disparaged, while Austin is respected.
Go figure.
As if the history channel is the authoritative source.
Well, at least eight out of 180 or so. (Maybe nine.)
You don't need to feel ashamed if you like the history channel. It's better than nothing, and you don't have to read (ick!).
Not so long ago San Jacinto day was a big deal but no more and I also include Golaid and visit the small monument there any time I'm in the area.
But to me the story of the Alamo (and #$%^ the revisionist stories) where a group was greatly outnumbered, knew they were going to die, had a mission and didn't cut and run even though they had multiple opportunities to do so gets to me. I know that there are newly raised questions if Houston really ordered them to hold up Santa Ana but to the story it's moot, they didn't cut and run, knowing their fate.
I can't think of that without getting misty.
Perhaps it's because as a kid the Texas revolution was pounded into our heads starting in grade school. Too bad that's no longer the case.
And the Alamo remains a powerful symbol. Bless the Daughters of the Republic of Texas, a volunteer group that has managed the Alamo since 1905. I "enjoy" watching kids trying to enter without removing their hats. Those ladies make sure they understand.
William Goyens is an incredibly interesting man (as I'm sure you know better than I), very successful at many things but, at least as far as I can tell, the issue of him being a runaway slave is still open to question with one story of Goyens buying his freedom, when his "owner" showed up in Nacogdoches, by paying him (the owner) $5,000.
The most credible story to me is that he was born free but during a trip to La. an attempt was made to sell him into slavery and instead he signed a note. He returned to Nacogdoches and when the holder of the note attempted to collect he (Goyens) contested it in court and won.
Perhaps part of the problem is that he was involved in a lot of things, even acting as a Cherokee interpreter for Houston and there are so many stories about him, I'm sure some of which, hum, skirt on the edge of dubious facts.
Kudos to you for keeping the flame burning! I feel sorry for kids these days that don't have the benefit of a very rich story.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.