[pepsionice]

The key thing that alot of folks simply want to overlook was that the Alamo and the entire region...was on Mexican soil. All of the Texans simply envisioned a local or national war that would cede the whole region to their republic efforts. If you could imagine 100 folks sitting in some town like Waco and having designs for a new state or nation...the state or national authorities would have to react just like Santa Ana and put down the regional rebellion.

And if overlooking is top priority...then the type of characters at the Alamo also fit into the situation. None of these "fine" gentlemen were exactly upstanding decent men. Their names have simply been written into history books as true heros and John Wayne painted them into the stuff of legends.

[Restorer]

the state or national authorities would have to react just like Santa Ana and put down the regional rebellion.

State and national authorities would have no option but to accept the surrender of the insurgents and then treacherously massacre them?

Somehow I doubt that.

Nothing even vaguely similar to Goliad happened during the entire WBTS, an enormously greater and more bitter conflict.

What happened at the Alamo can be justified by the laws of war, if just barely. Goliad cannot.

[no-s]

The key thing that alot of folks simply want to overlook was that the Alamo and the entire region...was on Mexican soil.

And they were fighting for their rights - under the mexican constitution of 1824. Santa Ana was the usurper of freedom, more like a hitler than a clintoon.

[jnarcus]

None of America was American soil until it was either bought or won in a war...Your point isn't very substantial. There was a statehood movement of enough substance that the Mexican army was defeated and Texas did become part of the US. I mean based on your logic we all overlook the fact that the Adams boys were sitting on British soil while deciding on how to engage in revolution...not real meaningful is it?