The captured men should have been held and eventually expelled back to the US.
There’s no possible way to excuse the outright murder of 350 people. Thats beyond brutal. It’s a war crime.
The same is true of the Indians murdering isolated settlers. Women were often raped and then killed if they were lucky. Children killed or taken by the raiding party. There were atrocities on both sides and it was wrong. But the isolated settlers were non-combatants with no way to protect themselves against a raiding party.
Let’s not forget the whole “refusing to learn Spanish or convert to Catholicism” aspects, either. I find myself curious about the show, but knowing what the History channel has become would, I suspect, make the result too depressing to watch, if you actually know much of the history.
Do you believe that there is an excuse for taking up arms against, and killing large numbers of people from, the very country that has invited you in and offered you large amounts of land and an opportunity for greater economic prosperity?
Santa Anna’s actions at the Alamo & Goliad were more than cruel. They were stupid.
He should have ignored both outposts–held after Houston had ordered they be abandoned. He & the other two armies with him should have gone straight after Houston’s forces.
Failing that he could have waited a bit longer at the Alamo for the bigger siege guns. Or offered terms for a surrender. No, he ordered an attack, ignoring the opinions of some underlings. Because The Napoleon of the West wanted glory! (Not actually facing battle himself, of course.) He lost far too many men–whose loss would be felt later.
General Urrea captured Fannin; Santa Anna ordered the massacre. In Texian Illiad, the author speculates that a few boatloads of defeated Texians delivered to New Orleans would have had a dampening effect on the rebellion. Instead, Santa Anna created more Heroic Martyrs.
He proclaimed the rebels “Pirates.” Nowadays, the word might be “Terrorists.” It was not a War Crime by the rules of that day.
Concerning the Comanches–Cynthia Parker’s father had been warned that he was settling too close to the Comancheria.
I’ve seen you post in IMHO and you’re the same there; an absolutely relentless and unshakeable sense of entitlement - usually white, middle-class and male, here just American.
It seems to me, that in all the books I read over the decades that seemed authoritative about the subject, that most of the Native Americans of the southwest learned their cruelty and propensity to display it from the Mexicans. I remember reading quite a few times that the tradition of scalping (at least amoung certain tribes) was something they started and learned from the Mexicans.
I am sure there is someone here that can verify or debunk if this was true or not.
I understand that scalping was practiced before the colonists arrived in North America. The British offered a bounty for redskins in 1755.
*Phips Proclamation
1755
A PROCLAMATION
Whereas the Tribe of Penobscot Indians have repeatedly in a perfidious manner acted contrary to their Solemn Submission unto his Majesty long since mad and frequently renewed. I have therefore at the desire of the House of Representatives with the Advice of his Majesty’s Council thought fit to issue the Proclamation and to declare the Penobscot tribe of Indians to be Enemies, Rebells, and Traitors to his Majesty King George the Second.
And I do hereby require his Majesty’s Subjects of this Province to Embrace all opportunities of pursuing, captivating, killing and Destroying all and every of the aforesaid Indians.
And whereas the General Court of the Province have Voted that a bounty or Incouragement be granted and allowed to be paid out of the public Treasury to the Marching Forces that shall have been employed for the Defence of the Eastern and Western Frontiers from the first of the twenty-fifth of this Instant November — I have thought fit to publish the same and I do hereby Promis that there shall be paid out of the Province Treasury to all and any of the said Forces over and above their Bounty upon inlistment, their Wages and Subsistance the Premiums or Bounty following viz.
For every Male Penobscot Indian above the Age of twelve years that shall be taken within the Time aforesaid and brought to Boston Fifty Pounds.
For every Female Penobscot Indian taken and brought in as aforesaid and for Every Male Indian Prisoner under the age of twelve Years taken and brought in as aforesaid Twenty five Pounds.
For every Scalp of such Female Indian or Male Indian under the Age of twelve years that Shall be killed and brought in as Evidence of their being killed as aforesaid, Twenty pounds.
Given at the Council Chamber in Boston this third day of November 1755 and in the twenty ninth Year of the Reign of our Sovereign Lord George the second by the Grace of God of Great Britain France and Ireland King Defender of the Faith.
S. PHIPS
By his Honour’s Command,
J. WILLARD, Secry.
God save the King. *
Mexicans, Tejanos, and Texians in the Mexican province of Texas rebelled against the Mexican government. The end result was indepedence from Mexico. Just like Mexican-Spaniards had just fought for, and gained, independence from Spanish rule in 1821.
*Colonial settlement
Many different immigrant groups came to Texas over the centuries. There was Spanish immigration in the 17th century, French and English in the 18th century, and massive German, Dutch, Swedish, Irish, Scottish, Scots-Irish, and Welsh immigration in the years leading up to Texas independence in the 19th century. Thus, the word Texian is not specific to white immigrants or English-speaking immigrants that settled the land. So, before Texas became a sovereign nation in 1836, Texian referred to any resident, of any color or language.
In 1834–36, the Texian Army was organized for the Texas Revolution of independence from Mexico, a nation which had won its independence from Spain a dozen or so years earlier. The Texian Army was a diverse group of people from many different nations and states. The Texian Army was made up of native-born Tejano volunteers, volunteers from the Southern United States; and people from England, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Portugal, and what is now the Czech Republic. Used in this sense, terms like “Texian Army”, “Texian forces”, or “Texian troops” would refer to any of the inhabitants of Texas, in that era, who participated in the Texas Revolution.*
Santa Anna and ISIS may think it’s OK to murder unarmed prisoners, and you may try to justify events, but I find killing unarmed prisoners to be a rather disgusting, and inhumane practice.
You understand, i assume, that underlining the word “revolution” does not change the nature of what they were doing, right? And using the word revolution doesn’t somehow magically make a rebellion against legally-constituted government an admirable or justifiable thing. I’m not saying that revolutions are never admirable or justified. I’m simply pointing out that doing nothing more than underlining the term revolution is intellectually lazy, and begs the very question that it seeks to answer.
The American revolutionaries of 1776 were at least honest enough to recognize that, had they lost the revolutionary war, they would have been viewed as traitors by England, and probably treated accordingly. Quite a few of them, writing at the time, made clear that they understood this. Plenty of the Mexicans fighting for independence from Spain understood that they faced similar treatment if they couldn’t win the war.
Nothing in your Wikipedia citation disputes any point that i’ve made. And, by the way, if you want to debate Texas history with someone who’s read a whole lot of actual scholarly books and articles on the subject, a quick cut-and-paste from Wikipedia might not cut the mustard. Just sayin’.
As for thinking it’s OK to murder unarmed prisoners, i don’t. I’m also, however, not naive enough, or historically dishonest enough, to focus only on the non-American “bad guys” of history when talking about morally problematic actions. I’ve simply been trying to suggest that if we’re going to apply moral standards to historical events like this, we should be intellectually honest enough to do it equally, rather than focusing only on the misdeeds of the “others” and giving historical handjobs to the American heroes.
And, to get back to the actual issue raised in the thread, i get annoyed at the jingoism that often accompanies historical recreations on TV, and also at being lectured about history by people who apparently get most of their historical knowledge from those same TV shows, and from Wikipedia.
Good Point. Texas Rising has several Tejano characters. It was a mix of people in Texas that were fed up with living under Mexico’s rule. The people in Texas were doing all the work, fighting off the Indians and creating settlements. Much like the colonists did in New England before their revolution. There comes a point when the people that settle a land, bleed and die for it, no longer what to be under the thumb of a foreign colonial power.
It’s ironic that Mexico started as a colony of Spain. Got Independence and then held it’s own lands that became extended colonies they controlled. They need colonists to occupy Texas, and take it from the Indians. Eventually those colonists wanted to control the land they fought for and earned.
And yet the simple, some might say lazy, underlining of the word revolution drives home the point that Mexicans in the Texas area of Mexico fought against the Mexican government. For those who know the difference between the meaning of the words revolution and invasion, that is.
*revolution -
noun
› social studies a sudden and great change, esp. the violent change of a system of government:
The country seems to be heading toward revolution*.
Revolutionaries usually understand that they will not be treated well if their revolutions were to fail. By flying a black flag (I wonder what other armed group, that murders unarmed prisoners, also flies a black flag?), and playing Toque a Degüello, Santa Anna made it clear that he intended to slaughter his enemies.
Some people might think that Santa Anna’s slaughter of unarmed prisoners would have stopped the revolution. Unfortunately for Santa Anna, his decision seems to have pissed off the revolutionaries more than frightened them.
You asked if there was an excuse for taking up arms against your own country. The answer is, Yes there are many reasons for taking up arms against your own country. The actual wording changes, of course, but the bottom-line is that revolutionaries violently reject their current government.
In this case:
Santa Anna’s overthrowing the Constitution of 1824 and establishing virtual dictatorship aroused bitter opposition.
Why would you get annoyed at any historical recreation on TV? It’s a TV show. Producers, and directors, have no legal responsibility to provide you with an accurate description of history. Live and learn.
[/QUOTE]
Complete non-sequitur. I never suggested that the Americans invaded. I was merely pointing out that emphasizing the word “revolution” does not somehow provide a justification for people taking up arms against a country that has gone out of its way to invite them in. There might indeed be a justification for rebellion, but simply calling it a revolution is not sufficient.
Another set of complete non-sequiturs. Nothing in this section contradicts any point i made.
I believe that Santa Anna’s centralization of power, and his efforts to basically eliminate Mexico’s federalist structure, do indeed provide a certain amount of justification for revolution, especially on the part of Mexican citizens.
I’m somewhat less convinced that it’s a reasonable excuse for Texian efforts at independence. If the Texians had such respect for the rule of law, why had they spent the better part of the previous decade doing everything they possible could to evade, circumvent, or outright ignore the laws of Mexico?
Your quote, standing alone as it does, makes it seem like the sole Texian motivation for rebellion was Santa Anna’s rise to power. This is convenient for you, because Santa Anna’s well-deserved reputation as a self-aggrandizing despot and a brutal leader makes it easy to paint the Texians as the good guys with a just cause for revolution. Of course, by ignoring the years of tensions between the Texians and the Mexican government that preceded Santa Anna’s leadership, including skirmishes and smaller efforts at rebellion, and constant violations of the Mexican laws that they had sworn to follow as a condition of immigration, you provide an incomplete historical picture of the sources of tension.
My bigger point here is not really to argue whether the Texians were right or wrong to seek independence. It’s simply to note that, in deciding such issues, everyone should base their position on an accurate rather than a distorted or self-serving picture of the historical reality.
I will take your points here in turn.
First, i get annoyed at these historical recreations on TV because they too often play into, and benefit from, an appeal to historical ignorance and jingoism. I’m not naive enough to believe that historical television should be historically perfect. Television is an entertainment medium, and it is often necessary to take some liberty with historical reality in order to present a compelling and gripping tale for a non-specialist audience. There are plenty of historical movies that take artistic license with history and that are, in my opinion, still good history and good entertainment.
Second, i get that it’s a TV show. The problem, as i suggested in an earlier post, is not so much with the show itself, as with the fact that a considerable number of Americans (including, apparently, some on this message board) will watch a show like this and assume that they actually have a solid understanding of the historical period as a result.
Third, i don’t recall making any assertion about the legal responsibility of the producers and directors. Perhaps you could point me to the place where i suggested that they are legally bound to provide accurate history. Or were you just setting up another straw man to compensate for your poor arguments?
Finally, you suggest that i “live and learn.” I don’t really know what you mean by that, but it seems to me that the whole point of this exercise is to do precisely that. My main concern is that some people seem to do all their historical learning from unreliable sources.
Slavery was certainly illegal in Mexico, although the various Mexican regimes since independence (& the state government of Tejas y Coahuila) were not consistent in enforcing the law. Still, most of the Anglo settlers wanted slavery–not just the “grandfathered” slaves Austin’s colonists brought with them (per an agreement originally made with Spain) or those who’d had their property sign “labor contracts” (probably with X’s) lasting 99 years. Bowie & Fannin were both slave dealers/smugglers–highly illegal. But not all of those who died at the Alamo & Goliad were primarily concerned with slavery.
OK–I really do need to hold my nose & watch Texas Rising. Has this issue been discussed?
The British Empire didn’t abolish slavery until 1833. Well, for most of the Empire; the last exceptions were removed in 1843.
By the way, some Tejanos opposed Santa Anna; others were centralistas (“Loyalists”).
