Remember the Alamo?

[KW4MW]

This is the first time I've heard this version which Nickelodeon is pushing onto our kids. #
Nickelodeon tells kids: (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44168) includes link to Nick video.

Something tells me that in a hundred years or so the USA will be portrayed as bad guys for defeating the Nazis and the Imperial Japanese.

[k6pme]

The last I heard via French textbooks we didn't defeat the Nazi's, France did.

As for the rest, one more reason I can't stand TV.

[nx6d]

What about the Pee Wee Herman version of the Alamo?

Where's the basement?

Dave WX7B http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[nx6d]

woo..

I just checked your link.

Mike, I hope you don't beileve that stuff. You're smarter than that.

WorldNetDaily=NutJobDaily...

Dave WX7B

[KW4MW]

Quote[/b] ]WX7B Posted on May 08 2005,18:20I just checked your link.

Mike, I hope you don't beileve that stuff. You're smarter than that.

WorldNetDaily=NutJobDaily...

Dave WX7B

Well they do tend to be on an overly religious bent but every now and then they do have some interesting news items and links.

And I certainly can't make an informed decision by only referring to one or two sources that support my point of view.

[KA3RFE]

Quote[/b] (KW4MW @ May 08 2005,17:31)]This is the first time I've heard this version which Nickelodeon is pushing onto our kids. #
Nickelodeon tells kids: (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44168) includes link to Nick video.

Something tells me that in a hundred years or so the USA will be portrayed as bad guys for defeating the Nazis and the Imperial Japanese.
You're not going to like what I am about to say, but the people who were trying to grab Texas from Mexico were, in fact, planning to join the Union as a slave state. It's documented. Some in the top leadership owned slaves. And Texas DID become a slave state in the Union.

Sooooo....that's what happened.

[WA5KRP]

Quote[/b] (KA3RFE @ May 08 2005,21:04)]You're not going to like what I am about to say, but the people who were trying to grab Texas from Mexico were, in fact, planning to join the Union as a slave state. It's documented. Some in the top leadership owned slaves. And Texas DID become a slave state in the Union.

Sooooo....that's what happened.
Anybody that knows their history recognizes that the Texians committed a land grab from the Mexican government. The Mexican government encouraged settlers to come in and do what settlers do - settle the land. In exchange for signing a pledge of allegiance to Mexico (and becoming Mexicanos) the Mexican government gave grants of land to people willing to settle and use the land. To this day the vast majority of deeds go back to the day of the Mexican land grants and it still shows up in titles if you research far enough back.

The great miscalculation was the Mexican government expecting Texians to be loyal to Mexico. WRONGO BONGO! At that time in history there was still a lot of wrangling between France, England, and Spain over North American territories west of the Mississippi. Between 1810 and 1830 there were still a lot of folks - first and second generation - who remembered the battle with England for independence. The concept of taking land by whatever means possible was the NORM. Foreign governments - including the newly founded US government - were not trusted by settlers moving west. If you'll remember, Texas emerged from it's defeat of Santa Ana as a REPUBLIC. And it's still on the books. To this day Texans may vote to again become a republic. Or to subdivide into six republics or states - depending on if they choose to stay in the Union.

Texian settlers had slaves. That included Sam Houston. Again - in those times that was the norm. Texian settlers brought with them a basic distrust of the nascent US government. But naturally they allied with the US to discourage further attempts by Mexico to take their land back. But it made more sense at the outbreak of the Civil War to align with the South. It's a geographic DUH and slavery was not a big deal to most.

But to encapsulate the whole enchilada - Texian settlers made a deal with Mexico and then told them to shove it. It's our land now. There was a huge battle at the Alamo and the Texians lost. Sam Houston kicked Santa Ana's ass a few months later. The rest is history.

Thank goodness somewhere along the line we became Texans. I've never liked that Texian business.



WA5KRP
San Antonio, Texas

[W2ILP]

I seem to remember reading that Davy Crocket, Jim Bowey and some of the other defenders of the Alimo were wanted for crimes that they had committed in other states and that is why they went to Texas. #I dunno if that is correct. #Does anyone know? I don't want to disrespect any heros of the Alimo if this is not true.

If so should kids be singing:
Davy...Davy Crockett...King of the wild frontier.
?

w2ilp (Interstate Legal Possies?)

[WA5KRP]

Quote[/b] (W2ILP @ May 08 2005,22:31)]I seem to remember reading that Davy Crocket, Jim Bowey and some of the other defenders of the Alimo were wanted for crimes that they had committed in other states and that is why they went to Texas. #I dunno if #that is correct. #Does anyone know? #I don't want to disrespect any heros of the Alimo if this is not true.
There is some substance to your allegations about Davy Crockett and Jim Bowie, although neither was wanted.

Do you now feel free to disrespect their sacrifice?




WA5KRP
Texas

[KW4MW]

Quote[/b] ]KA3RFE Posted on May 08 2005,19:04
You're not going to like what I am about to say, but the people who were trying to grab Texas from Mexico were, in fact, planning to join the Union as a slave state. It's documented. Some in the top leadership owned slaves. And Texas DID become a slave state in the Union.
DOH! #Yes, that's common knowledge. #Texas did became a slave state in the Union and later joined the Confederacy. #During those time a lot of prominent folks owned slaves and not just in Texas, obviously we all know about the southern states but slaves were held in northern states too, Maryland, Delaware and even in some of the New England states.

What bothers me about the Nick video is that it basically tells kids that the reason and the only reason, that everyone at the Alamo was killed is because they were evil slave holders and that Santa Ana was an avenging warrior. #

Somehow I don't ever remember anything about Santa Ana freeing the slaves at the Alamo, it seems to me that all reports were that everyone at the Alamo was killed.

[K9STH]

First of all there is some misinformation abounding on this thread.

Not everyone was killed at the Alamo. First of all the women and children that remained were not killed. Also, there was a slave named "Jim" that was spared as well. Jim was "owned" by William Travis. In addition, there were several persons who did escape. Those persons have been recently "discovered" through various records including pension applications.

Jim was returned to Travis' family where he supposedly stayed for a time. According to reports he "ran away" and lived probably with Indians in what is now Oklahoma. There is a record from shortly after the Civil War that refers to a freed slave that is almost certainly Jim from the Alamo.

There were 5 or 6 persons that survived the battle and were captured. From various diaries of Mexican officers it is pretty certain that one of those was David Crocket. They were executed within hours of the fall of the Alamo.

All of the bodies except 1 were burned. The single person that was "afforded" a burial was a Mexican-Texian who's brother was an officer in Santa Ana's army. His relatives were allowed to take his body for burial.

Although a number of those who came to Texas towards the end (like probably David Crocket and almost certainly Sam Houston), most of the early settlers including Stephen Austin were relatively "happy" under Mexican rule. The Constitution of 1824 was very liberal and allowed the Texians a considerable amount of "self rule". Also, the land grant law of 1828 allowed a considerable freedom as to those who could own land in Tejas (and in other parts of Mexico as well).

When Santa Ana took control of the Mexican government he immediately "repealed" the Constitution of 1824 and began imposing his will not only on those in Tejas (Texas) but all over the country of Mexico. Austin went to Mexico City to plead the cause of the Texians. He was imprissoned for a number of months before he was allowed to return to Tejas. His health suffered considerably from that imprisonment.

Jim Bowie (note the spelling, not Bowey) was probably a relative of Santa Ana by marriage. Bowie's wife, Ursula, was either the sister of Santa Ana or a first cousin (the accounts vary). The knife that he carried was NOT invented by him but by his brother. Bowie's brother gave him one of the large knives after several encounters in Louisiana. It is pretty certain that Bowie was bed-ridden during the final days of the Battle of the Alamo. He had advanced TB and was near death when the battle was fought. He probably would have not survived more than a few days had he not been killed during the battle.

Bowie was definitely a "scoundrel"! Many of his land dealings were not on the "up and up" when he was in Tejas and his personal activities in Louisiana ranged all over the place in terms of legalities.

Whether or not the Mexican flag with 1824 was flown at the Alamo is open for debate. However, the majority of historians believe that the majority of those fighting at the Alamo would not have been there except for their belief that the Constitution of 1824 should be reinstated. There were those who were inclinded towards becoming part of the United States of America but at the Alamo those were a small minority.

Santa Ana executed many Mexicans that were not any where involved with the Texian revolt. He had at least 3 armies in the field going from town to town, especially in the northern portions of Mexico and in southern Tejas, executing anyone who showed the least opposition to Santa Ana's "idea" of how Mexico should be ruled.

Had Santa Ana not come to power there is a definite possibility that the United States would not look like it does today. It is possible that the Texians would have eventually broken away from Mexico but it is also possible that they would not have. The Mexican War would have been delayed if it were fought at all. The Mexican War resulted in Mexico losing not only Texas but New Mexico, most of Arizona, Nevada, and California. Remember that the southern portion of Arizona and New Mexico, the Gadsden Strip, was purchased by the United States in 1853 with the thought that a railroad may be run through the area. At the same time the United States attempted to purchase Baja California but the Mexican government would not part with that portion.

Anyway, there are definitely two sides to the Alamo and to the formation of the Lone Star Republic (which later became the Lone Star State). Santa Ana's grip on Tejas was released at the Battle of San Jacinto (Jacinto is pronounced hacinto). There is some truth that a mulatto woman was in bed with Santa Ana when Sam Houston's forces attacked. That is the source of the "yellow rose of Texas" legend. Santa Ana was definitely a "ladies man".

Santa Ana lost and regained power in Mexico several times during his lifetime. Many Mexican historians believe that his leadership resulted in many setbacks for the Mexican people.

There is a town in west Texas named Santa Ana. As far as I know it is the only town in the state named for a loser! Frankly, it isn't that much of a town, at least in my opinion.

Glen, K9STH

[w0aew]

C'mon, Glen. Who're you gonna believe...John Wayne or a bunch of limp-wristed academics? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[W2ILP]

Quote[/b] (KW4MW @ May 09 2005,04:35)]Quote[/b] ]KA3RFE Posted on May 08 2005,19:04
You're not going to like what I am about to say, but the people who were trying to grab Texas from Mexico were, in fact, planning to join the Union as a slave state. It's documented. Some in the top leadership owned slaves. And Texas DID become a slave state in the Union.
DOH! #Yes, that's common knowledge. #Texas did became a slave state in the Union and later joined the Confederacy. #During those time a lot of prominent folks owned slaves and not just in Texas, obviously we all know about the southern states but slaves were held in northern states too, Maryland, Delaware and even in some of the New England states.

What bothers me about the Nick video is that it basically tells kids that the reason and the only reason, that everyone at the Alamo was killed is because they were evil slave holders and that Santa Ana was an avenging warrior. #

Somehow I don't ever remember anything about Santa Ana freeing the slaves at the Alamo, it seems to me that all reports were that everyone at the Alamo was killed.
I thank the Texans who post here for the comprehensive history of Texas and the Alamo. I didn't learn much about Texas in school but I learned a lot about New York.
Such as how Manhattan (a borough of New York City) was bought from native American Indians for only about $24.00 worth of trinkets.

I was born in The Bronx (another borough of New York City). I lived in a neighborhood in The Bronx (note: It is usual to capitalize "The" when you talk about The Bronx, because it was once known as "The Bronx's Farm"). Yeah... I lived in THE South BRONX in a neighborhood that was later known as "Fort Appache".
I lived there until I was in fourth grade. Then my family moved to the Northern part of the Bronx. I had escaped Fort Appache even before they made a movie about it there. Who knows? If my family didn't move I might have become a victim of the gang wars of Fort Appache". Then I could be eulogized like Davy Crockett.

Bobby...Bobby...Bobby Wex...The kid from The wild South Bronx!

w2ilp (I Live Peacefully)

[KW4MW]

Glen - thanks for setting me straight on Alamo history - being from a mid-Atlantic state we didn't get much Texas history. #I had always believed that everyone was killed at the Alamo. #Maybe because that has always been the legend.

However, your account confirms my original premise, that Santa Ana did not wreck vengance upon the Alamo occupants just because they were slave holders.

It is for that reason that I brought opened this thread in the first place, the Nick News Bump (http://www.nick.com/all_nick/tv_supersites/video.jhtml?show_id=new&clip=10) is just as erroneous as some of our flawed accounts but also has a racial undertone that I personally find disturbing.

[K9STH]

ILP:

I have read that the Indians (Native Americans for the politically correct) that sold Manhattan Island for the supposed $24 worth of trinkets actually didn't own the island in the first place. As far as a "legal" title to the land it was the Europeans that got "taken". But, considering that poesession was about 99 percent, if not 100 percent, of the "law" in those days the "real" owners of the land were the ones that were "taken to the cleaners".

The tribe that sold the land got $24 (which was a "tidy sum" back in the 17th century) worth of "trade goods", the Europeans got the the island, and the tribe that really "owned" the land got the shaft!

As far as learning about one's state I know that every year from 1st grade through 6th grade we had 1 week of Indiana history every year. Also, in the past (I don't know about today) whenever title to any land in Indiana (including residential lots) was passed that an "abstract" had to be done. In fact, many mortgage companies wanted an "abstract" whenever a loan was taken out on property. I have copies of 2 different abstracts on the house and property that my parents owned in LaPorte, Indiana. Those abstracts are a very good source of historical information since they, at least those on my parent's property, go back to at least the original treaty with the particular Indian tribe (even before going back to the settling of the territory before the Revolutionary War in some cases). The actual wording of the treaty and those who signed the document (actually "made their mark") for the various tribes is included as part of the abstract. The subdivision of the land is then outlined down to the creation of the the exact plot that is in question.


OES:

John Wayne's movie version of the Alamo was probably the 2nd worst in terms of historical accuracy of all the movies made on the subject. The worst was made prior to World War I. That movie "suggests" that the battle was caused by a Mexican soldier "assaulting" an Anglo woman. It is blatantly "racist" yet was proclaimed at the time to be a "hisotrically accurate portrayl" of the story of the Alamo. Portions of this movie are sometimes shown on cable television (usually the History Channel) when the history of the Alamo is shown.

The familar shape of the Alamo chapel was not present until several decades after the battle. Also, the location was not considered "sacred" land until after the turn of the 20th century. The chapel was used by several businesses as well as the larger location used by the United States Army during the Mexican War, by Confederate forces during the Civil War, and again by the United States Army for a short period after the Civil War. Today only the Long Barracks and the chapel remain. Back in the "goode olde dayes" no one thought to "preserve" many of the historical sites and they became used for all sorts of things.

There have been a couple of searches for the well that was near the chapel. It was reported that the remains of the burned bodies as well as weapons and other artifacts were "dumped" down it. However, so far, the actual location has not been found although several possible locations have been located through electronic means.

Anyway, I have been to San Antonio de Bexar several times over the years that I have lived in Texas. The Alamo (actually the Mission San Antonio de Valero) is definitely on the "must" list if you visit that city. However, the Daughters of the Republic of Texas have, over the years, omitted the contributions of the Mexican-Texians. Only relatively recently have the contributions of Juan Seguin and other non-Anglo participants have been recognized in both the story of the Alamo and in the Battle for Texas Independence.

History has always been one of my major interests with the Civil War and World War II "fighting it out" for "top dog". Although not known by a lot of people these days, the Civil War has its roots in the Battle for Texas Independence. Most of the major commanders were junior officers in the Mexican War which was precluded by the Battle for Texas Independence. Therefore, any serious student of the Civil War has to go back to at least 1836 and really even before to set the prelude for the happenings of 1861 through 1865.

Glen, K9STH

[W2LYS]

Glad I live within driving distance of the Alamo.

My daughter got her first tour of the Alamo the day after she said "Look Daddy... they made a movie about the Alamodome".

We were channel surfing and found the move "The Alamo"... the Alamodome is San Antonio's domed stadium...

[K9STH]

LYS:

That is priceless! I couldn't stop laughing for a while.

I had to show your post to my wife.

I know that your daughter now knows the difference.

Glen, K9STH

[W2LYS]

Yep.

What surprised me is that she hadn't been there yet. I'd have figured it would have been a standard class trip for all the schools in the area.

[W2ILP]

When you live to be 72 years old, as I am, you start to remember some things that reach the time of being historically ancient, because few others remember the past that accurately...and those who do want to forget it.
I feel that I know a lot about the history of The south Bronx that has never been officially recorded. Recently I met with a Black Ham who came to HRU2005, which was a ham educational seminar on LI, NY, where I lectured. Speaking to this Ham, I found out that he lived at 890 Dawson Street, when I lived across the street at 891 Dawson Street. Thus was during the time of World War II. The chance meeting with the distinguished Black ham, who had been an Army officer and involved with US missle development, jarred my momory into remembering my past. The neighborhood has originally been a Jewish neighborhood, but some of the Jewish land lords decided to be non -descrimitory and to rent apartments to Blacks, if they would pay more rent than whites. When WW2 started there was a housing shortage and the government froze what could be charged for rent. Thus a status quo existed with some buildings being rented by all ex-natives of Barbados and some being rented by ex natives of central Europe. Surprisingly enough we all got along fine. My Mom and Dad finially decided to move further north in The Bronx after VE Day. .
The trouble that caused my old neighborhood to become "Fort Appache" did not involve freed slaves or freed Jews. it was a turf war between a few Black gangs and a few newly arrived Puerto Rican gangs, who didn't understand English well enough to understand that the Blacks were friendly. Puerto Ricans rented many of the apartments that were formerly rented by Jews, who were moving on up.

Years later, when I moved to Commack, Long Island my house was painted and egged every Holoween and Easter by rotten WASP vandals. I never saw any damage done to Jewish property by The Bronx Blacks....
although I did see some really nasty graphiti that was written on the walls of the school that I attended. I don't think it was done by the Black kids. I suspect that only some chosen Jewish kids could have been talented enough to have composed the most profane types of the poetry.

Enuf Sed.

W2ILP (Interracial Living Paradice?)

[W2ILP]

STH...
As far as the Indians selling Manhattan for $24 dollars worth of junk and Indians not owning it to begin with. You have to understand that native Americans did not understand that people could own any land. Thus they were natural Socialists without even knowing it. I was told that they believed that all the land was owned by a great spirit who was also responsible for all the wonders of nature. Basically they didn't want to claim anything that belonged to Mother Nature for themselves. This was a mistake that they paid dearly for everywhere, because their unwritten debt to Mother Nature could not stand in county courthouses against any property that was deeded by closing lawyers to humans who were dead or alive.. Indians never tried to collect land rent from the Pilgrims or the Puritans, although the Indians were here first.
The trinkets that were given to an Indian cheif were like the informal token payment of $1.00 that was recently paid by the town of Riverhead, NY for a big parcel of US Govennment property that included an airport which was formerly leased to Grumman by the US Navy.

Now. when I was a kid I lived in an apartment house that was owned by a Jewish landlord. ( Although naturally the land should have been owned by native Americans). The Jewish landlords were too wealthy to live in the neighborhoods where the apartment houses that they owned were. They hired Black janitors to maintain the buildings and tough Italians to act as agents and collect the rents. The agents came around when my Dad was at work. If my Mom was unable to come up with enough cash to pay the rent...Well I don't want to tell you how scared we were.
In a way; this was all good experience for me. It made me as wise as Fred Allen and as cheap as Jack Benny.

Enuf sed.

w2ilp (Insolvent Land Payments?)

[KW4MW]

Nickelodeon slavery claim outrages Alamo keepers (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050509/us_nm/life_alamo_dc)