Alamo Archaeology

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Tue May 08, 2007 12:40 pm

Quite Min, but that wasn't my point. The final battle, I believe, was very short, but the siege wasn't. This gave time for the men to take their chances if they had so wished as I doubt there was little small arms fire at night so their absence would not have been immediately noticed.
Whether their sacrifice achieved much I cannot say, that does not denigrate their courage one iota.

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue May 08, 2007 12:53 pm

Had Fannon been able to join Travis at the Alamo the defending force would have been close to 700 men which would have been a much tougher nut to crack. It would have allowed two men to be reloading while one was firing and presented a virtual constant rain of fire on the advancing Mexcian infantry. While the outcome would still have not been in much doubt, the damage done to Santa Ana's army in that case might well have precluded any further advance into Texas that year.

Had the Texas Revolution been dragged out into a second year who can say what the effect on history may have been?

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Tue May 08, 2007 1:00 pm

True, battles are not won, they are lost.

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue May 08, 2007 1:48 pm

Yes....campaigns of Thud and Blunder.

Pippin · Post by **Pippin** » Fri May 25, 2007 7:04 am

Im from Denmark and do not know much about the american history. I just read some part of James Atkins Shackfords "David Crockett - The man and the legend". In the sections about The Alamo it said the the people at alamo had another parliament the the rest of the freedom fighters. It kind of pussled me. Is the account in this book acuarate?

Pippin

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Fri May 25, 2007 7:39 am

Many U.S. citizens do not remember or realize, that Texas is the only state that ever existed as an independent country before it became a state.

Prior to the battle of the Alamo, there was a revolution underway, in which the Texians (as they were called then) were trying to gain independence from Mexico. They formed a provisional government at that time around 1835. Early the next year (March 6), was the battle of the Alamo. Some of the Alamo defenders were Texian, as so were under the provisional government of Texas. Others were from the U.S. This may be why the book speaks of the defenders having separate governments.

After the battle, the Texians had some victories, the Mexican general was defeated and Texas attempted to operate as a separate nation though Mexico did not recognize them. After a short time, with the agreement of the Texians, Texas was annexed by the U.S. as a new state.

I am not certain, but perhaps this explains some of your confusion. Most U.S.A. people do not realize this history of Texas, but believe me. All Texans (as they are now called) do know their history and are proud of it.

Barracuda · Post by **Barracuda** » Wed May 30, 2007 1:59 pm

Forum Monk wrote:Many U.S. citizens do not remember or realize, that Texas is the only state that ever existed as an independent country before it became a state.

What about the Republic of California? I still think we should be our own country. We are the fifth largest economy in the world, just by ourselves

Post by **MichelleH** » Wed May 30, 2007 2:13 pm

But can we give Britney, Paris and Lindsey to another State? Better yet, can we put up a fence around Los Angeles county and not include it?

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Wed May 30, 2007 2:41 pm

Many U.S. citizens do not remember or realize, that Texas is the only state that ever existed as an independent country before it became a state.

I was thinking Texas could secede and become it's own country,
so Bush isn't our president. But like the Middle East, he has too
many oil interests here. He would just send in air strikes and troops.

Iirc, Texas does have an opt out clause from the U.S.

Post by **Minimalist** » Wed May 30, 2007 2:51 pm

Iirc, Texas does have an opt out clause from the U.S.

They tried that once.....how far did they get?

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Wed May 30, 2007 3:14 pm

Minimalist wrote:
Iirc, Texas does have an opt out clause from the U.S.

They tried that once.....how far did they get?

The mistake Texas made was joining the Confederacy.

gunny · Post by **gunny** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 10:20 am

Had a relative from Montgomery, Texas join the confederate calvery, Terrys Texas Rangers, carried double barrel shotguns instead of sabers, he and 21 men joined in 1862---non returned to this town of 256.

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 10:46 am

Civil wars are the cruelest of conflicts I fear.

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 10:52 am

gunny wrote:Had a relative from Montgomery, Texas join the confederate calvery, Terrys Texas Rangers, carried double barrel shotguns instead of sabers, he and 21 men joined in 1862---non returned to this town of 256.

There's a web site for everything, Gunny....complete with a midi of "The Bonnie Blue Flag."

http://www.keathleywebs.com/terrysrangers/

Post by **Minimalist** » Sat Jun 02, 2007 10:52 am

History International is running a 2 hour special on The Mexican-American War on Monday.

If anyone wants it just sing out and I'll Pando it to you on Tuesday or so.