You must log in or register to comment.

DoomGoober t1_ja21r1u wrote

It's also worth knowing that Sam Houston ordered the Alamo abandoned as it was not worth defending and had little strategic value.

Texians didn't have enough pack animals to remove the cannon, so they left them there. Then a bunch of men decided to defy Houston's orders and defend the Alamo anyway.

The Mexicans outnumbered the Texians and defeated the Texians. The Mexican command decided to execute all of the Alamo defenders, even though most of the Mexicans preferred to take them captive.

Houston used the murder of the Alamo defenders as a rallying cry for support and he was able to raise a larger army, leading to the eventual defeat of the Mexicans.

So, while the Alamo was meant to be abandoned, it ended up playing an outsized role in the war.


quaffi0 t1_ja2j90o wrote

Very succinct. The Alamo was lost against orders. Retreat to better redoubts was the subjectively better action at the time. Regardless, it was turned into a rallying cry to this day. Most people, including Texans, do not understand the nature of the sacrifice that was made.


the_orig_princess t1_ja3dbgl wrote

Growing up, we talked about it a lot. But since it was Texas we just talked about the “rumor” of Houston abandoning the Alamo, because to say it as truth undermined Texan identity. It was a weird thing that even as 9 YOs we treated it like that.


MN8616 t1_ja5gk8u wrote

Houston didn't reign in his troops at the final stages of San Jacinto because of all the Texian troops put to the sword at the Alamo & the lesser known Battle of Goliad.


pizza_engineer t1_ja42rct wrote

Remember, the Texians & the Alamo defenders were fighting to preserve slavery in Texas.

I wouldn’t call that a “sacrifice”.


will0593 t1_ja4m71h wrote

they really were. they wanted independence from mexico because the mexican 1824 Constitution prohibited slavery and of course all those southern US transplants didn't want to live anywhere without their good old chattel slavery system.


signal_lost t1_ja62ydr wrote

Care to explain why the first Texas revolution flag was the 1824 flag demanding a return to the constitution?

Santa Ana ignored the 1824 constitution (actually repealed it!) and turned Mexico into a military dictatorship.

Austin may have been pro slavery, but Houston wasn’t.


waiv t1_jacqmmy wrote

Mexico wasn't a military dictatorship, there was a huge public reaction against federalism and the elected Congress decided to change the constitution.


will0593 t1_ja652jm wrote

I'm not talking about Austin OR Houston- I'm talking about the vision for Texas.


signal_lost t1_ja6729w wrote

Pre-Revolution you had 4 people arguing who was in command.

After the Revolution was rapidly changed by the people who moved there. Hell, poor Juan Seguin had to flee because of transplants moving to San Antonio being assholes (and Santa Ana’s men).

Pretending there was a singular motivation before, during and after I think is a bit much.

Also pretending Santa Ana was a good guy, is the weirdest Reddit retcon of history I’ve seen. Seriously, I’ll buy you a plane ticket to Chiapas to go around and tell people you think he was a good guy, and was someone everyone should have been willing to live under his rule!

For unrelated reasons can you fax over your dental records first.

Santa Ana put people to the sword who surrendered under a white flag. He was a war criminal and a despot.


waiv t1_jacwb5i wrote

Yeah, that was the law in Mexico, foreigners who raised weapons against the Mexican nation should be treated as pirates and summarily executed. They captured a newcomer group in Copano and since they surrendered and didn't fight they were spared.

The law was repealed before the battle of San Jacinto, where the Americans shot people who surrendered under a white flag.

Mind you, Santa Anna's army treated civilians better than the American army in the Mexican American war, there were plenty of atrocities against civilians back then, including the rape and pillage of Huamantla.


signal_lost t1_jadahu4 wrote

Calling it a law that Santa Anna demanded when he was a despot and had control of the government is a bit of a stretch. Hitler had all kinds of laws passed that didn’t make them fairly unethical war crimes.

Goliad was a massacre that even the Mexican commander didn’t want to commit and begged Santa Anna to back down on.


waiv t1_jadr81w wrote

See, the problem here is that you already decided that Santa Anna was a despost in ,when any cursory knowledge of Mexican politics and history would tell you that back then Santa Anna wouldn't even exercise the authority he had as the elected president, preferring to spend his time between his Hacienda or in military campaigns. When the Tornell Decree was voted for Congress he was already in San Luis Potosi organizing the Texas campaign. The law was repealed a few days before the battle of San Jacinto.

Also treating filibusters as pirates was the standard back then. Wasn't worse than what happened in San Jacinto.


signal_lost t1_ja62keh wrote

It bought 13 days for the rest of the Army to go north and burn supplies behind them. Santa Ana divided his army as he went north and was having supply chain challenges. Probably true a retreat was a better idea but they were trying to control moral. Sam Houston was forced to fight or he was going to be removed as commander, and the scrape was at risk of becoming a poorly managed shambolic retreat to Louisiana.


e_keown t1_ja6h0f1 wrote

Wasn't the retreat towards Louisiana an attempt to bait Santa Ana to follow the Texian army into the United States where Sam Houston and Andrew Jackson had arranged the U.S. military to be waiting?


waiv t1_jacwie9 wrote

They started moving North AFTER they heard of the Alamo falling.


TTVmeatce t1_ja41f3z wrote

yeah a sacrifice was made in the name of slavery fuck all those dudes


pizza_engineer t1_ja43et2 wrote


Sherman’s only mistake was not turning west after Savannah.


Recipe-Opposite t1_ja4j6rc wrote

Prove it.


Jeramus t1_ja5eio2 wrote

Prove what? Mexico had already abolished slavery and the Texas white colonists had slaves. Texas also joined the Confederacy 30 years later. The Texas Revolution was in large part a fight to preserve slavery.


bombayblue t1_ja57ce0 wrote

Another important point is that the Texas Revolution came at a time when many other parts of the Mexican empire were also trying to revolt and break away.

Santa Ana was not the best leader.


Montagnagrasso t1_ja5scas wrote

Though for pretty different reasons!


Klaus_Von_Richter t1_ja64e5q wrote

What are you talking about?

Santa Anna suspended the Mexican constitution and became a dictator. This lead to multiple revolutions. The Texas revolution was the only successful one.


Montagnagrasso t1_ja65a1y wrote

The other revolutions weren’t to preserve slavery? I’m just saying they happened at the same time but there’s different forces and motivations involved


havohej_ t1_ja40id5 wrote

I only know the Alamo for two things: 1) Ozzy pissing on it 2) PeeWee Herman traveling to Texas to recover his missing bike from the Alamo’s basement


pizza_engineer t1_ja43qu5 wrote

That’s all you need to know.

The rest of it is pretty miserable.


Dawnawaken92 t1_ja2uliz wrote

As a proud Texan who lives in San Antonio. I would like to respectfully state. REMEMBER THE ALAMO!


annheim3 t1_ja37igf wrote

Come and take it.


PhillipBrandon t1_ja3ichw wrote

That's Gonzales.


annheim3 t1_ja3isyi wrote


The Battle of Gonzales centered on American colonists in that town who were refusing to give back a cannon (the one on the flag) back to Mexican soldiers that they had received in 1831 to fend off Natives in the area. They wanted it now to defend themselves from Mexican General Antonio López de Santa Anna's increasingly aggressive actions against the colonists.


pizza_engineer t1_ja43myq wrote

Those pesky Natives, acting like they were fighting for their ancestral lands.

Tsk tsk.


Montagnagrasso t1_ja5t1c6 wrote

Santa Anna’s aggressive…enforcement of the abolition of slavery in Mexico.


Kingofthetreaux t1_ja4ceem wrote

The war was about introducing slavery to Texas, which Mexican law forbade. However, Steve F Austin was hell bent on bringing slaves to Texas so that’s in short why the Alamo was ever a thing in the first place.


Montagnagrasso t1_ja5sxmv wrote

To be more specific, it was about preserving slavery which had been a de facto practice since euro-american settlers were induced to the area in the early 1820s. Technically it was already illegal, but many of the settlers simply wrote up “contracts” for all the slaves that they were bringing from the states (and importing from Cuba and Africa for several decades after importing slaves was banned in the US) of 99 years, so that legally they were free (but indentured) workers. In practice it was literally just slavery with extra steps.


[deleted] t1_ja596n6 wrote



DoomGoober t1_ja5gb8q wrote

Texians were Anglo-American residents of Mexican Texas and, later, the Republic of Texas. Today, the term is used to identify early settlers of Texas, especially those who supported the Texas Revolution. Mexican settlers of that era are referred to as Tejanos, and residents of modern Texas are known as Texans.


MixedPhaseFlow t1_ja2o9vq wrote

The huge memorial they built in commemoration outside Houston ist quite impressive. Although the mirror pond is being reclaimed by nature


NKeeney t1_ja1z2n9 wrote

“Remember the Alamo” hit different back in the day


formerlyanonymous_ t1_ja2p1n0 wrote

You see, Bobby, your daddy's gene'ation's givin' away everything we fought for! Pannyma Canal. Mexican legs.


Dawnawaken92 t1_ja2up7d wrote

I thought we kept the leg


NateDawg80s t1_ja5zbuu wrote

It's a reference to a delightful episode of King of the Hill. Then again, most episodes with Cotton make me laugh out loud.


markedanthony t1_ja4jc8z wrote

Thank god they won and defended slavery


TTVmeatce t1_ja41ajc wrote

and it was all in the name of enslaving other people


RogerKnights t1_ja4fhm1 wrote

I read that Houston only attacked after he learned that Santa Anna had split his forces, and that he moved rapidly to attack the weaker part once he learned that. Also, that he waited until Santa Anna had advanced so far his supply lines were stretched.


Old_Doughnut_5847 t1_ja4jj59 wrote

Disgusting that all the comments condemning the Texans' pro-slavery stance are downvoted. You people are really showing your true, ugly colors there.


NateDawg80s t1_ja5ztx2 wrote

Racism and slavery are ugly and hateful. Commenting that the fight for Texas' independence was a fight to preserve slavery, three decades before the Civil War, is asinine.


OhioMegi t1_ja5bzpi wrote

Pretty much everyone wanted slavery back then. How else would they make money if they had to pay people to do work?


ShelleyTX t1_ja59958 wrote

Fiesta San Antonio!


SuperMGS t1_ja6bm4q wrote

So why the fuck don't


413mopar t1_ja7v5x0 wrote

George Santos had a plan for Sam Houston and beat the mexicans almost singlehandedly!


ChickenMom90 t1_jab0ee9 wrote

Guess the Texans were pissed.


Cwallace98 t1_ja2eu3k wrote

Yay, the Texans got to keep their slaves.


TTVmeatce t1_ja41it7 wrote

you should not be down voted for this


Cwallace98 t1_ja428pu wrote

I knew i would though. It was a main reason for the texans revolting.


TTVmeatce t1_ja45cp0 wrote

yep. In Texas history we're taught that Texians revolted because Santa Ana violated the constitution of 1824. What they don't teach is that the part he violated was the part that allowed for slavery. Also left out the part where American slave owners/slavery supporters were moved into the state just to help tip the scale.


Ameisen t1_ja574tw wrote

Slavery played a part, but the Texan Revolution was a part of a larger, general set of insurrections within Mexico at the time (the Mexican Federalist War) against Santa Anna.

Slavery was absolutely a cause, but the general trigger was the increasing centralization of the Mexican government. It wasn't that they violated the constitution, but that they replaced it with a centralist one in 1835.


TTVmeatce t1_jabrq92 wrote

in Texas it was slavery. It was an entire imperialist production by American slave owners


justsikko t1_ja55z3p wrote

The vast majority of the soldiers who fought in the battle of San Jacinto didn't even live in Texas before the revolt


SirMcCheese t1_ja3j27y wrote

Very clear people are not aware Texas broke away from Mexico at least partially to keep slaver legal. There were other issues they had with Mexico's government, but a very clear effect of the Texans winning was slavery continuing in the area until the U.S. civil war ended.


sik0fewl t1_ja5j0sx wrote

Only to join the United States, which would also outlaw slavery. Such bad luck!


Regulai t1_ja2anhf wrote

And yet today Texan's favour men who run away and abandon them at the first sign of trouble.

Texas the coward state!


Montagnagrasso t1_ja5tju8 wrote

We hate Ted Cruz too, the state is just too gerrymandered for anything else to really happen.


WillMudlogForBoobs t1_ja2yimm wrote

They were able to inflict such lopsided losses by attacking the camp in the middle of the night while everyone was asleep, which was against the generally accepted rules of war at the time.


gturrentini t1_ja315tt wrote

Not exactly. They attacked in the middle of the afternoon while the Mexicans were taking a siesta.


hamsterwheel t1_ja48kkl wrote

If anything this is really a condemnation of naptime.


ajax6677 t1_ja4t6ht wrote

You can take my naps from my cold dead pillows.


wasdlmb t1_ja32shi wrote

You know what's also against the rules of war? Massacring POWs, which Santa Anna did twice at the Alamo and Goliad. Santa Anna was fighting a dirty war and it's on him that he posted no guards when going down for siesta.


ghotiaroma t1_ja690ia wrote

> You know what's also against the rules of war

The tear gas cops use on demonstrators exercising their constitutional rights.


wasdlmb t1_ja6q5cm wrote

I fail to see the relevance.

Also, this is a pet peeve of mine. Chemical irritants are banned in war because, before they were, people would make incredibly powerful irritants that would put people in the hospital for days (sulfur mustard). Tear gas is painful and nothing else, and would honestly probably be fine in war if it weren't for the risk of escalation. We've actually seen it recently in Ukraine being dropped from drones, first by Russia and now by Ukraine, and nobody's raising too much of a fuss about it.

In terms of crowd control, it has its uses. Just like every other tool the police have, it's not about the fact that they use it, it's the fact that they use it when they shouldn't. I say this as somebody who has been gassed while protesting.


SurroundTiny t1_ja3xpj1 wrote

Your "generally accepted rules of war" are just delusional fantasy. In any case, the Texans attacked at 4:30 in the afternoon. The reasons for the lopsided losses were the mistakes that Santa Anna made.


BrandonBaileys t1_ja32i44 wrote

Pretty sure executing all the POW’s was against accepted rules of war at the time too. Mexican army fucked around and found out.