Posted on 04/18/2004 5:56:22 AM PDT by rw4site
HoustonChronicle.com -- http://www.HoustonChronicle.com | Section: Viewpoints, Outlook
April 17, 2004, 10:39PM
Historians have not yet reached a consensus on the strategic impact of the Battle of San Jacinto of April 21, 1836. Some Texas historians argue that it was a decisive battle of continental proportions. Mexican historians argue that the Mexican army entered Texas at will after the battle until the U.S. Army invaded Mexico in 1846. Many modern historians concede that the Republic of Texas could not stand alone and had to plead for annexation to the United States in order to avoid being retaken by Mexico.
For many Texans, however, the Battle of San Jacinto is significant today regardless of historical quibbles. To them, it represents the birth of the Texan. The Texan was born when a ragtag army of Anglo-American volunteers raised their arms and shouted, "Remember the Alamo." By defeating a superior Mexican Army, the Texans assumed a rational basis for their cause. Texans took on the mantles of heroes by bringing a democratic republic of Christians to a heathen land.
Then, as the decades went by, the public wove its own story by sharing memories of the great battle. Through museums, public monuments, memoirs and staged re-enactments, the public transcript became fully developed. The official discourse that evolved was that the Texans had won independence through a revolution for liberty.
Texas now celebrates March 2, 1836, as Texas Independence Day. The Battle of San Jacinto gave the Texan his identity in such names as Houston, Crockett, Travis, Lamar, Bowie and Austin.
All of the terms of the Texan identity are positive, such as independence, liberty and democracy. This is because the public played a major role in creating this memory of the Battle of San Jacinto and the victorious Texan. And it's also because the public doesn't want to remember anything negative about the battle or the Texans. As an example, the public wants to remember that the Alamo was a slaughter of brave soldiers, and that Goliad was a massacre. The public does not want to remember that San Jacinto was a slaughter. It was a slaughter, not of 188, not of 350, but of 630 soldiers killed in combat, shot in the back, shot while begging for mercy, shot while helplessly mired in the swampy mud. The public does not want to remember that even Mexican women were killed in the slaughter following the battle.
The public chooses not to remember that Texas was already independent before the Anglo-Americans ever immigrated. Tejanos had already fought, sacrificed and died to make Texas free from Spanish rule in 1821. The modern memory forgets to celebrate the Constitution of 1824, and the Tejanos who died to achieve it.
Tejano is a Spanish word. It means Texan. The Tejano became a Texan in the early 1700s. Tejanos were slaughtered by the Spanish army in 1813, during the war for independence. Yet, there is no shrine for the hundreds of Tejanos who died just a few blocks away from the Alamo in San Antonio. Not one historical marker.
Tejanos such as Juan Seguin, José Antonio Navarro and José Francisco Ruiz are not simply Mexicans living in Texas. They were the first Texans. Tejanos initiated the conflict with Santa Anna. They fought in the battles of Béxar, Alamo and San Jacinto. Indeed, the only Texan to fight at both Alamo and San Jacinto was a Tejano: Juan Seguin. Tejanos hosted the Anglo settlers, they defended Anglos from the Mexican centralist government, and they signed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the Republic of Texas.
The public memory has forgotten that Americans brought their 37,000 slaves while spreading liberty. And while they were bringing Christianity to a heathen land, they forgot to bury hundreds of Mexican Christian soldiers. Texas has yet to make a conscientious effort to locate the remains of Mexican soldiers killed in action within the city limits of a major modern city.
Much of Texas history is based on the public memory rather than on documented facts. For many years, it was taught officially in public schools through comic books that depicted the Mexican as a cartoon character, and the Texan as the paragon of virtue. It served the exclusive purpose of Anglo-American gratification at the expense of other Texans. It silenced a credible history of our state. For too long it has alienated many loyal Texans from the public discourse, museums, parks and monuments supported by their own taxes. Much of Texas history is accurately proud. Much is vindictive.
The public must some day decide whether it wants to continue with a comic book history that excludes a major racial and cultural population, or if it wants to accept a documented state history that commemorates all Texans and helps to forge a unified community for the future, once and for all.
Tijerina is a professor of history at Austin Community College.
So, the war for Texas independence was all about slavery?
So?!
Who says the public does not want to remember these facts? The Battle of San Jacinto was effectively over in 18 minutes. Even though the Mexicans substantially out numbered the Texians in the field, there were over six hundred Mexican soldiers killed and over 700 captured. Less than 10 casualties on the Texian side. When those guys said, "Remember the Alamo", they really had in mind "Remember the Alamo and Do Something About It" They did just that at San Jacinto.
As for the significance of the battle, it lead to the establishment of the Republic of Texas and eventually to the U.S. expansion to the Pacific coast.
Once San Jacinto was fought and the Mexican armies withdrew to the south of the Rio Grande, the Mexicans could NEVER have retaken Texas. Eventhough young Texas was weak, Mexico could not get through a six month period without a revolution toppling governments. Mexico could never have mounted an efficient invasion and held the territory, especially with Texas growing more populous and stronger each month.
No the Mexicans had their independence but it was taken almost immediatly by Santa Anna. Yes it was a massacre at San Jacinto but it was in revenge for the massacres accross the state done by Santa Annas army. True debt was high in Texas and it eventually had to join the US, but as a soverign nation I doubt Mexico had the luxury of attacking Texas after it was recognised as independent by the US or Europe.
At the time it was a battle within Mexico for Texas self governence. After San Jacinto it would have been an act of war on Texas by Mexico which would have brought in America and probably most other nations, Spain, France, England, to the aid of Texas and Mexico would have been in big trouble, maybe losing the whole nation.
If Santa Anna had been executed before he had surrendered Texas, the war would have continued. Santa Anna was the dictator of the whole nation of Mexico, not just the head General. His word sent the rest of the Mexican army back to Mexico.
Hey Tijerina, ya have any ideas about just how big a Sh** Hole Texas would be today if it were part of Mexico?
As an example, the public wants to remember that the Alamo was a slaughter of brave soldiers, and that Goliad was a massacre. The public does not want to remember that San Jacinto was a slaughter. It was a slaughter, not of 188, not of 350, but of 630 soldiers killed in combat, shot in the back, shot while begging for mercy, shot while helplessly mired in the swampy mud.
San Jacinto was revenge for slaughtering the men at Goliad AFTER THEY SURRENDERED.. (which really tends to pi$$ us off).
The Tejano became a Texan in the early 1700s
No, it was ‘Texian’, not ‘Tejano’. I never even heard that phrase until the 1980’s.
Much of Texas history is based on the public memory rather than on documented facts. For many years, it was taught officially in public schools through comic books that depicted the Mexican as a cartoon character, and the Texan as the paragon of virtue.
Odd, we had 3 years of Texas history during the 60’s and 70’s, and my teachers ALWAYS stressed that the fight for Texas was fought by ALL Texians...white, brown, black and red-- but I guess she’s too busy making generalizations such as ‘historians argue’ and ‘historians concede’ to actually back up any of her spew with FACTS!
Ahh, yes, a community college. No doubt it has an international reputation for excellent research. (Smirk!)
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.