Here are a few random thoughts after reading both threads.

The siege of the Alamo gave Houston time he needed to put together an army and gutted the Mexican army. Its meaning and importance can be read on any map of North America. Or, for that matter, what would a map of Europe look if the US had remained a small nation unable to join the allies in WWI or WWII ? What would a map of the Orient look like if the US had not become a Pacific nation and able to oppose the Japanese in WWII? I don't know either, but it's interesting to speculate.

The Texas revolution did not begin as a war for independence. The Texicans thought themselves to be loyal Mexicans fighting to restore the Mexican constitution of 1824. The tyrant Santa Anna did not take command of the Mexican Army in response to a Texican declaration of independence. Texas did not declare independence until March 2, 1836, four days before the Alamo fell at the end of Santa Anna's 13 day siege. It's very unlikely that any of the Texicans at the Alamo ever knew that Texas had declared its independence.

An opinion -- the line in the sand is a good story, but it just doesn't sound like Travis. Consider his own words; "Colonel Neill and myself have come to the solemn resolution that we will rather die in these ditches than give them up." "If my countrymen do not rally to my relief, I am determined to perish in the defense of this place, and my bones shall reproach my country for her neglect.", "… I am determined to sustain myself as long as possible and die like a soldier who never forgets what is due his honor and that of his country. Victory or Death". Can you picture him offering his men the opportunity to slink off into the night?

The Texicans were fighting to maintain slavery? Well, the planter class certainly had slaves and I'll bet they wanted to keep them. However I've never read anything from those days that even suggests that slavery was a major issue. For example, Eyewitness to the Alamo is a collection of the known writings of letters, orders, notices, etc from eyewitnesses to the battle. The word slavery doesn't even appear in the index. (Bill Groneman, Eyewitness to the Alamo, ISBN:1-55622-502-4). Nor does the word slavery appear in the index of Wallace O. Chariton, 100 Days in Texas, ISBN:1-55622-131-2, a collection of similar writings, all from the period from 9 December 1835 to 17 March 1836.

Body slavery was illegal in Mexico. That's not the whole story. Peonage, land slavery, provided the labor necessary for the encomiendas basic to much of the economy in Spanish colonies such as Mexico. Peonage continued after Mexico declared its independence in 1821. Peonage lasted in Hispanic America long after slavery ended in the United States. Try Googling peonage or encomiendas.

The transAppalachian pioneers were not serfs or peasants. They were generally literate -- at least enough to read newspapers and scripture, and they kept up with current events well enough to govern themselves. Community schools were the norm. Read any good biography of Sam Houston to learn how the community schools worked. (Marshall De Bruhl, Sword of San Jacinto: A Life of Sam Houston, ISBN: 0-679-75302-8) Not all the defenders were frontiersmen; many were professional men – lawyers, doctors, tradesmen, storekeepers. (T.R. Fehrenbach, Lonestar: A History of Texas and Texans, ISBN:0-517-06490-1). If you are reading a history book and the author starts talking about illiterate American pioneers you can bet he doesn't know much about history.

The Texicans stole Texas from the Mexicans who lived there? The problem is that neither Spain nor Mexico ever successfully settled Texas. There are a couple reasons. First there were not enough peaceful Indians to reduce to peonage and, therefore, no way to establish encomiedas that their economy required. Second, Spanish military based in Presidios couldn't protect the Hispanic population from aggressive, highly mobile Indians. The Mexican frontier was in retreat. For example, the Alamo itself was abandoned as a Mission in the 1790's.

What could the Spanish and Mexicans do? Invite land-hungry Anglos in to provide a buffer between the Hispanic settlers and the hostile Indians. It didn't work. Anglos, notably Austin and later Houston made friends with the Indians, who simply bypassed the Anglos and continued to raid the Mexicans as they always had. (Sadly good relations between the Anglo settlers and Indians did not continue as we all know.) . Put another way, if the Spanish/Mexicans had ever settled Texas then the Anglos would never have been invited to settle there.

Ok, but why are there so many really good Mexican Restaurants in San Antonio if Mexicans never settled Texas? OK, I lied. There has been a large-scale, successful Hispanic settlement of Texas, but it didn't begin until 1911 when large numbers of folks fled to Texas from a civil war in Mexico. As hard as it is to believe today, there were more German/Americans than Mexican/Americans in San Antonio in 1900(Fehernbach, Lonestar). A good related article is: http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/mexican_voices/voices_display.cfm?id=90

Comparing the histories of Mexico and the United States is interesting. At the time of the American Revolution Mexico was the larger, richer, probably more populous country, and had been settled for hundreds of years. But, by the 1890's the US was equivalent to Mexico in population and growing rapidly. By the 1830's the US was probably had more than double Mexico's population and was still rapidly growing.

Spain and then Mexico worried a great deal about a rapidly expanding US threatening their northern frontier. The Spanish even considered setting up a French or English colony in Texas as a buffer between the US and Mexico. The US had offered to purchase Texas from Mexico twice, but finally agreed by stay out of Texas (Google the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo). There is no historical evidence that the US ever violated the treaty, though Fehrenbach reports Mexican historians have always suspected that the US was behind the Texas revolution. (T.R. Fehrenbach Blood and Fire, ISBN:0-512-476673)

Opinion again -- there's no reason to think that the veteran, combat-hardened Mexican army, armed with muskets and bayonets, couldn't have defeated the regular US Army of the time, also armed with muskets and bayonets. Cinco de Mayo, a holiday in these parts, commemorates a Mexican army victory over the similarly armed French regulars.

Unfortunately for Santa Anna the Texican soldiers were not regulars. They were irregulars, mostly raised on the frontier to use firearms with, to the Mexicans, unimaginable efficiency and accuracy. The Texican long rifles were accurate out to 250-300 yards compared to, maybe, 100 yards for the Mexican muskets. The result was the Santa Anna's army took more casualties than it could sustain and was eventually defeated at San Jacinto.

I can't believe I typed the whole thing.

- Phil