Ok I am about to open a huge can of worms esp among the Texans but here I go. First the actions of the people at the Alamo were beyond heroic truey inspiring. I guess the words "foreign" tyranny got me thinking. I am not an expect on Texas history but I pick up stuff here and there. I sometimes wonder about the supposed tyranny of Mexico. It appears MExico worst sin at times was not seeing the true value of Texas. I mean if a Country(mexico) invites you in to place to settle it how is that foreign tyranny. I want even go into the false Catholic conversion issue which is an interesting side note.
JUst curious to what Texans think about the issue. I myself see a more valid reason for this as Manifold Destiny and as a natural consequence of what nations did at the time.
Manifold Destiny...or Manifest Desitiny?
There were many events and decisions that led up to the rebellion. The site I linked in the post above has a pretty decent overview of it, IIRC.
First, it was not foreign tyranny, but domestic tyranny that the Texians were resisting. Most of them had signed up under the 1824 (?) Mexican Constitution, which had been replaced by Santa Anna and his dictatorship of Mexico. He styled himself "The Napoleon Of The West," which should tell you most of what you need to know. I don't think anyone here has said that it was "foreign" tyranny.
Second, the event that touched off the rebellion proper was when the Mexican government came to confiscate the cannons they had given the settlers for defense against raiding Commanche Indians (among other arms). Much like Lexington and Concord, the confiscatees were distinctly uninterested in giving up any arms in such a climate.
"I sometimes wonder about the supposed tyranny of Mexico. It appears MExico worst sin at times was not seeing the true value of Texas."
Well, that view discounts the Tejano support for the Texas Revolution. Nearly 10% of the Alamo garrison was Tejano, as was the only survivor of the garrison (Brigado Guerrro, I believe -- he is mentioned in Walter Lord's "A Time to Stand").
The proximate cause of the Texas Revolution was Santa Anna usurpation of rights granted in the 1824 Mexican Constitution, especially Santa Anna's willingness to disregard both property rights and previous agreements made by the Mexican government. Texas was not the first province to revolt against the central government (it was the second), nor would it be the last (both Del Norte and the Yuccatan revolted twice after Texas succeeded in leaving Mexico).
Nor am I referring to the Mexican laws against slavery in my argument that the Texas War of Independence, and the other rebellions in Mexican provinces was about property rights. The Centralists would grant and then recind land titles with a rapidity that was neither predictable nor rational. Often, recision of title would occur after the title holder had improved the land, increasing its value from often nothing.
The basic difference between Mexico and the United States for the first centruy of each country's existence was each nation's approach to law. For the most part, United States leaders were constrained by that nation's constitution. For the most part, the Mexican constitution was constrained by its leaders. The law was what the Mexican President said it was. Santa Anna was one of the major contributors to that attitude.
Had Mexico retained the liberal, federalist government it established in 1824, and particularly if they respected property rights and allowed elected representatives from the Mexican state of Tejas, I doubt that there would have been sufficient energy from the anglo population to have triggered a rebellion, much less the successful popular revolution that resulted. And you would not have had deep Tejano support for the revolution.
The background of the Austin Colony was that Mexico--and Spain befoe them-- was not strong enough to hold Texas against the Indians, particularly the Comanche. The Anglos were invited to establish what amounted to a buffer state. They were famous as "indian fighters." The Comanches were known as the Lords of the South Plains, and the deserved the title. For a small "tribe" they were immensely effective, controlling the huge area between the Arkansas River and the Gulf. More like their range, since they were relatively few in number. Best horsemen in the world. They looked like Mongols and rode like them, even better horsemen that the Mexicans--which is saying a lot. Anyway, the Mexicans brought in the Anglos and found they were unruly.
Santa Anna realized they had to be tamed--they along the the Tejanos, the Mexicans in the region who did not like his dictatorship. So be made up a strike force and crossed over in Texas in the dead of winter--no small feat.
And reached San Antonio faster than the Texians could react. Houston wanted the garrison in San Antonio to abandon their "fort" and pull back to join him. Didn't happen, in part because Crockett showed up with a small force.
I don't know how serious you are about this:
"Manifold Destiny and as a natural consequence of what nations did at the time.." is not all that clear.
But "manifold destiny" could not apply beyond as a reference to the nature of the individuals involved...not some American plot to take land from a peaceful neighbor.
The majority of those defending the Alamo and fighting on afterward (to victory) were more pioneers and individualists than anything else. There were a goodly number of mexican born pioneers in that mix!
The 'war' started when the M - oops - mexican government reneged on promises, dropped the constitution and rules under which the Texacans/Texans had settled...
The original fight was over having the ground rules changed under them.
In that regard, not much different from another 'revolution' 25 or so years later, even though it was in another country.
"Manifest destiny" and "slavery" just make it more palatable in today's polite society.
And over and above all, there's no real reason why anyone should have to wonder what tyranny the Texians were subject to. They laid it all out in the Texas Declaration Of Independence, which still rings down the century plus since it was first set to paper.
I posted it here earlier: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1588615/posts
Manifold denotes the exhaust system on your car, while Manifest is clearly evident.
The main issue in the Texas Revolution was the fact that General Antonio Santa Anna discarded the Mexican Constitution of 1824, and set himself up as a dictator.
You will notice the letters "1824" in the center of the Alamo flag......